Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 7/16/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/002441 Filing Date 02/18/2022.
Claim(s) 1-10 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are independent claim(s).
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. 1.72(a) states: "The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible" (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 is/are determined to be directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The claim(s) is/are directed toward the abstract idea of converting data into a coordinate value. The claim(s) do/does not contain any improvement to a technology or field, nor do they contain any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are not sufficient limitations beyond linking the abstract idea to a computer.
In analyzing the Applicant’s claims for subject matter eligibility we use the Alice Mayo framework.
See MPEP 2106 - Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.
In step 1 we determine that the claims are a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", (claim 1 is device interpreted as invoking 112 sixth (see below), claim 10 is a method), so we move to step 2A.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in Prong One we determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then we determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
In step 2A, Prong One we determine that the “receive data”, “determine a mode”, and “convert the data into a coordinate value”, limitations in the claims are directed to a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of converting data into a coordinate value, which falls under the abstract idea mathematical concepts as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This moves us to Prong Two.
In step 2A, Prong Two we use the factors discussed in 2106.04(d)(I) to determine that the abstract idea is not integrated to a practical application. Specifically the claims take the abstract idea of converting data into a coordinate value and doesn’t produce a practical application it merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). This moves us to step 2B.
In step 2B, we determine that the “display device” and “interface unit” in the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(A)-(B)).
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
In claim 1, the Applicant performs these steps on a "device", in claims 10 the Applicant performs the method on a device, which does nothing more than link the abstract idea to a computer.
Although the applicant adds the idea of converting data into a coordinate value to a computing device, the addition of a computing device does not add "something more" to the claims. This merely takes the abstract idea and simply adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-4 and 9 add additional steps to the idea of converting data into a coordinate value, but these steps are additional calculation steps and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “interface unit configured to be in communication with a remote controller” and “controller is configured to: receive data …, determine a mode …, convert the data …;” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
112 Means analysis:
There is a presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) when the terms “means for” or “step for” is not used. However, the claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) using the 3-prong analysis in MPEP § 2181:
(A) - Fist prong - The term “means” is not used, however, the term(s) “interface unit”, “controller” is/are used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholders, or nonce term(s), for performing the claimed function;
(B) - Second prong - The term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “be in communication”, “receive data”, “determine a mode”, “convert the data”, and linked with the transition word, or linking phrase, (“for”) “configured to”; and
(C) - Third prong - The generic placeholder(s) is/are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. No hardware or structure, material, or acts are claimed. Therefor there is no “structure” or “material” in the claim(s).
This shows that the presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is overcome.
Further, because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is invoked the written description must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant should keep in mind that the “structure, material, or acts” recited in the written description must be more than “general purpose computer” or general computer components.
See MPEP 2181 (II)(B) “Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations” describes what is required for these claims (emphasis by examiner):
“In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgess, III; John Townsend et al. US Pub. No. 2011/0231484 (Burgess).
Claim 1:
Burgess teaches:
A display device comprising:
a display module configured to output content thereon [¶ 0032] (information displayed on display);
an interface unit configured to be in communication with a remote controller [¶ 0027] (wireless I/O control device); and
a controller [¶ 0033] (Fig. 3A, 3D pointing device),
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive data from the remote controller [¶ 0114] (remapping function 1402 receives a button input from the 3D pointing device 1400);
determine a mode of the remote controller based on information included in the data [¶ 0104-105, 118] (a scrolling mode or a zooming/panning mode) [¶ 0108-109] (onscreen keyboard 1284 to be displayed using an input dialog mode); and
convert the data into a coordinate value based on the mode of the remote controller [¶ 0032-33] (Figs. 3A, 3B, 3D pointing devices 300 will be held by a user in front of a display 308 and that motion of the 3D pointing device 300 will be translated by the 3D pointing device into output which is usable to interact with the information displayed on display 308, e.g., to move the cursor 310 on the display 308) .
Claim 2:
Burgess teaches:
The display device of claim 1, wherein the data includes x-axis data, y-axis data, z-axis data, roll rotation data, pitch rotation data, and yaw rotation data [¶ 0031-33] (rotation about one or more of an x-axis attitude (roll), a y-axis elevation (pitch) or a z-axis heading (yaw). In addition, some exemplary embodiments of the present invention can additionally (or alternatively) measure linear movement of the 3D pointing device 300 along the x, y, and/or z axes to generate cursor movement or other user interface commands).
Claims 10:
Claim(s) 10 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 10 is a “method” claim, claim 1 is a “device” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess, III; John Townsend et al. US Pub. No. 2011/0231484 (Burgess) in view of Youssef; Joe et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0232649 (Youssef).
Claim 3:
Burgess teaches all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Burgess does not appear to explicitly disclose “delete the z-axis data”.
However, the disclosure of Youssef teaches:
The display device of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to:
delete the z-axis data, the pitch rotation data, and the yaw rotation data among the data when the mode of the remote controller is determined to be a first mode [¶ 0153-159] (z=0) [¶ 0105] (yaw and decreases and tends to zero) [¶ 0187-193] (yaw and pitch reset to zero); and
delete the x-axis data and the roll rotation data among the data when the mode of the remote controller is determined to be a second mode [¶ 0153-159] (x=0) [¶ 0040-41] (zeroing the effect of the roll velocity).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of interface control in Burgess and the method of implementing a pointer in Youssef, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of removing axis data in Youssef could be applied to the interface control in Burgess. Burgess and Youssef are similar devices because each implement pointers for user interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “controlling first parameters characterizing a cursor on a display surface using a movable pointer moving in space” [Youssef: ¶ 0010].
Claim 4:
The combination of Burgess and Youssef discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Youssef, which teaches:
The display device of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to determine the mode of the remote controller as the first mode when values of the roll rotation data, the pitch rotation data, the yaw rotation data, and the z-axis data among the information included in the data are 0 [¶ 0153-159] (z=0) [¶ 0105] (yaw and decreases and tends to zero) [¶ 0187-193] (yaw and pitch reset to zero) [¶ 0153-159] (x=0) [¶ 0040-41] (zeroing the effect of the roll velocity).
Claim 5:
Burgess teaches:
The display device of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to output a guide pop-up window when the content being output is included in a first category, wherein the guide pop-up window guides switching the mode of the remote controller to the first mode [¶ 0104-105, 118] (a scrolling mode or a zooming/panning mode) [¶ 0108-109] (onscreen keyboard 1284 to be displayed using an input dialog mode) [¶ 0056, 65-67, 87-89, 106-110] (on screen keyboard) [¶ 0066] (a new window keyboard, could be considered a “pop-up window”).
Claim 6:
Burgess teaches:
The display device of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to output the guide pop-up window when a virtual keyboard is output while the content is being output [¶ 0104-105, 118] (a scrolling mode or a zooming/panning mode) [¶ 0108-109] (onscreen keyboard 1284 to be displayed using an input dialog mode) [¶ 0056, 65-67, 87-89, 106-110] (on screen keyboard) [¶ 0066] (a new window keyboard, could be considered a “pop-up window”).
Claim 7:
Burgess teaches:
The display device of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to output the guide pop-up window when the number of items included in the content being output is equal to or greater than a first number [¶ 0048-49] (user interface which facilitates navigation through large collections, some not displayed at all, global navigation objects are permitted to vary based on a context of the UI view in which it is displayed) [¶ 0043-50] (navigation objects).
Claim 8:
Burgess teaches:
The display device of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
output a first user interface on the content when the mode of the remote controller is the first mode; and
output a second user interface on the content when the mode of the remote controller is the second mode, wherein the first user interface includes a larger number of items than the second user interface [¶ 0104-105, 118] (a scrolling mode or a zooming/panning mode) [¶ 0108-109] (onscreen keyboard 1284 to be displayed using an input dialog mode) [¶ 0056, 65-67, 87-89, 106-110] (on screen keyboard) [¶ 0066] (a new window keyboard, could be considered a “pop-up window”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess, III; John Townsend et al. US Pub. No. 2011/0231484 (Burgess) in view of Youssef; Joe et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0232649 (Youssef) in view of Choi; Mun-cheol et al. US Pub. No. 2007/0290998 (Choi).
Claim 9:
Burgess and Youssef teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Burgess and Youssef does not appear to explicitly disclose “set a movement speed of a cursor”.
However, the disclosure of Choi teaches:
The display device of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
set a movement speed of a cursor output on the content based on the remote controller to a first speed when the mode of the remote controller is the first mode [¶ 0012, 13, 14] (coordinate calculator which calculates a cursor coordinate value which gradually varies according to the changes of the first and second relative angles); and
set the movement speed of the cursor output on the content based on the remote controller to a second speed when the mode of the remote controller is the second mode, wherein the first speed is higher than the second speed [¶ 0020, 25, 45, 62, 72, 81, 105] (gradually changes according to the changes of the first and second relative angles).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of interface control in Burgess and the method of implementing a pointer in Youssef and the method of cursor input in Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of detecting cursor acceleration in Choi could be applied to the removing axis data in Youssef and the interface control in Burgess. Choi, Burgess and Youssef are similar devices because each implement pointers for user interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, because “the user's convenience can be improved” [Choi: ¶ 0105].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Friedman; Lee G. US 20100188429
Choi; Mun-cheol et al. US 20140118261
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 3:
Friedman; Lee G. US 20100188429
Sweetser; John et al. US 20060152489
Choi; Mun-cheol et al. US 20070290998
Rivolta; Stefano Paolo et al. US 20210034171
Sen; Hasan Tutkun et al. US 20210034171
Umeda; Yuichi et al. US 5963194
Lee; Janghee et al. US 20110304539
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 6:
Lee; Kunwoo et al. US 20180143702
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights