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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US Pub. 2014/0028595 A1, hereinafter "Lee"), in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0186026 A1, hereinafter “Gordon”).
Claim 1: Lee teaches An information handling system (“Lee”, Fig. 1, [0026], a terminal 100) comprising:
a touchscreen display (“Lee”, Fig. 1, [0030], a touch panel);
a touchscreen sensor to detect first and second inputs (“Lee”, Fig. 1, [0012], an input unit which detects physical touch and electrical input; [0026]-[0030], [0036], first input tool 110 and second input tool 120); and
a processor to communicate with the touchscreen sensor, the processor to:
receive a user input to select an input mode for the touchscreen sensor (“Lee”, Figs. 1&2, [0039]-[0040], the control unit 230); and
when the selected input mode is a continuous workflow mode (“Lee”, Fig. 3, steps 310-340; Fig. 4, [0042]-[0048], and [0052]-[0055], further teaches a multi-touch drawing workflow therefore teaches operating in a selected drawing workflow), the processor to:
determine a first input type of the first input; determine a second input type of the second input (“Lee”, Figs. 1&2, [0029]-[0031], [0036]-[0037], e.g., first input tool 110 and second input tool 120);
based on the first input type, set a first position of the first input as a start point;
based on the second input type, set a second position of the second input as an end point; and when a first application is being executed, connect the start and end points on the touchscreen display (“Lee”, Figs. 2&3, [0036]-[0045], the first tool’s contact point constitutes the claimed “start point”, and the second tool’s contact point constitutes the claimed “end point”, and provide the line connecting the two contact points; Fig. 4, [0044]-[0048], and [0052]-[0055]).
Lee does not explicitly teach determining an amount of time between the first and second inputs and performing the endpoint connection workflow in response to the amount of time being less than a predetermined threshold.
Gordan teaches determine a first amount of time between the first and second inputs; and performing the endpoint connection workflow in response to the first amount of time being less than a predetermined threshold (“Gordon”, Fig. 2, [0027]-[0029], teaches an event queue and gesture processing unit that process touchscreen events occurring within an event window having a predetermined duration; Fig. 4, [0033]-[0035]; Fig. 5, [0036]-[0039], determines whether the second touchdown event is received within time interval T2 so that the two contacts are processed together as a double tap).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s touchscreen drawing system to incorporate Gordan’s temporal threshold technique for determining whether first and second inputs are part of the same gesture. The modification would predictably provide improving input flexibility and reducing unintended connections between unrelated inputs.
Claim 2: Lee and Gordan teach the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the processor further to:
determine whether the second input type is a pen (“Lee”, Fig. 1, [0030]); and based on the second input type being a pen, connect the start and end points with a straight line on the touchscreen display (“Lee”, Figs. 1-3, [0040], [0043]-[0045]).
Claim 8: claim 8 is directed to a method for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9: claim 9 is directed to the method of claim 8 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15: claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16: claim 16 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US Pub. 2014/0028595 A1, hereinafter "Lee"), in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0186026 A1, hereinafter “Gordon”), and further in view of WESTERMAN et al. (US 2009/0228842 A1, hereinafter “Westerman”).
Claim 3: Lee and Gordan teach the information handling system of claim 1, however, Lee and Gordan do not explicitly teach wherein when a word processing application is being executed, the processor to select one or more lines of text extending from the start point to the end point on the touchscreen display.
Westerman explicitly teaches wherein when a word processing application is being executed, the processor to select one or more lines of text extending from the start point to the end point on the touchscreen display (“Westerman”, Figs. 3,5, and 10A-10B, [0088]-[0090], [0097], and [0102], a touchscreen device including a word processing application, that selects text between first and second endpoints).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s touchscreen system to incorporate Westerman’s known text selection function so that, when a word executing application is executed, the processor selects the lines of text extending between Lee’s start and end positions, thereby improving touchscreen text editing efficiency.
Claim 4: Lee, Gordan, and Westerman teach the information handling system of claim 3, wherein when a graphical user interface is being executed, the processor further to: select one or more graphical user interface icons extending from the start point to the end point on the touchscreen display (“Westerman”, Fig. 3 and 10A-10B, [0085], [0088], define a selected display area using first endpoint 304a and second endpoint 304b and selecting the displayed content located between the endpoints; the displayed content including icons (Figs. 1-2, [0039][0045])).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s touchscreen system to apply Westerman’s known endpoint bounded selection technique to its displayed GUI icons, thereby selecting one or more icons extending from the start point to the end point and providing an efficient range selection operation for multiple GUI objects.
Claim 5: Lee and Gordan teach the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the processor further to:
determine a third input type of a third input (“Lee”, Figs. 2 & 9, [0030]), [0036]-[0040], [00904]-[0100], detecting and distinguishing inputs from multiple input tools and receiving additional reference point information after initial contact point information e.g., step 910-920 constitutes as a third input);
set a third position of the third input as a next point (“Lee”, Fig. 9, [0097]-[0100], connecting the additional references points with corresponding indication lines, whereby a subsequently received reference point position constitutes a next point);
determine whether the second input type is a pen (“Lee”, Figs. 1-3, [0030]); based on the second input type being a pen, connect the start and end points with a straight line on the touchscreen display; and when the first application is being executed, connect the start and end points on the touchscreen display (“Lee”, Figs. 1-3, [0036]-[0040], [0043]-[0045], [0094]-[0100]).
Gordan explicitly teaches determine a second amount of time among the first, second, and third inputs; and in response to the second amount of time being less than the predetermined threshold (“Gordon”, Fig. 2, [0027]-[0029], teaches an event queue and gesture processing unit that process touchscreen events occurring within an event window having a predetermined duration; Fig. 4, [0033]-[0035]; Fig. 5, [0036]-[0039], determines whether the second touchdown event is received within time interval T2 so that the two contacts are processed together as a double tap).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s touchscreen drawing system to incorporate Gordan’s temporal threshold technique for determining whether first and second inputs are part of the same gesture. The modification would predictably provide improving input flexibility and reducing unintended connections between unrelated inputs.
Claim 10: claim 10 is directed to the method of claim 8 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11: claim 11 is directed to the method of claim 10 for implementing the method steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12: claim 12 is directed to the method of claim 8 for implementing the method steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17: claim 17 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18: claim 18 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 for implementing the method steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19: claim 19 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 for implementing the method steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US Pub. 2014/0028595 A1, hereinafter "Lee"), in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0186026 A1, hereinafter “Gordon”), and further in view of Keating et al. (US 2016/0109969 A1, hereinafter “Keating”).
Claim 6: Lee and Gordan teach the information handling system of claim 1, however, Lee and Gordan do not explicitly teach the following feature, taught by Keating, who teaches wherein when the selected input mode is a two user operation mode, the processor to: set a first user action at the first position; and set a second user action at the second position (“Keating”, Figs. 1, 2B-2C, [0023]-[0024], [0027], [0029], and [0031], a touchscreen device operating in a two user environment in which User 1 and User 2 may simultaneously provide touch inputs at respective positions).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s multi-input touchscreen system with Keating’s know two user input identification technique. The modification would permit accurate processing of simultaneous user inputs and prevent ambiguity as to which user performed each touchscreen action.
Claim 7: Lee, Gordan, and Keating teach the information handling system of claim 6, wherein the first action is a first line drawn in a first color on the touchscreen display and the second action is a second line drawn in a second color on the touchscreen display (“Keating”, Figs. 1, 2B-2C, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s multi-input touchscreen system with Keating’s know two user input identification technique. The modification would permit accurate processing of simultaneous user inputs and prevent ambiguity as to which user performed each touchscreen action.
Claim 13: claim 13 is directed to the method of claim 8 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14: claim 14 is directed to the method of claim 13 for implementing the method steps of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20: claim 20 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasselli et al. (U.S. 2014/0168142 A1) discloses method and system for discriminating stylus and touch interactions.
Russell et al. (U.S. 2010/0020022 A1) discloses visual feedback system for touch input devices.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights