DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 5/15/2025 is considered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111.04 recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur”.
4. Claims 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, and 18 appear to recite contingent limitations (e.g. “in a case…”). Accordingly, the claims 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, and 18 are examined in view of MPEP 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanamaru (US 2019/0287492 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Kanamaru discloses a one-hand control method for a touchscreen, comprising (Fig. 2):
receiving a first input from a hand of a user on a first touch region (Paragraph 0040 and Paragraph 0058: trace points of touch by a hand on screen of a display section);
and performing target processing on a target object in a target interface based on a processing parameter corresponding to an input parameter of the first input, wherein the input parameter comprises an input parameter for a holding part of the hand (Fig. 5 element TA, Paragraph 0039, Paragraph 0040, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045 lines 4-6, Paragraph 0058, and Paragraph 0062 lines 10-17: plurality of objects in region TA are processed according to an operating region that is defined based on the trace points, where the trace points are provided by an input of an operating finger of the hand).
In regard to claim 2, Kanamaru discloses wherein the input parameter of the first input comprises a moving track of the holding part of the hand in the first touch region (Paragraph 0040 and Paragraph 0058: trace points of finger on screen of the display section).
In regard to claim 3, Kanamaru discloses wherein the processing parameter comprises a downscaling direction of the target interface or a moving direction of the target interface; the performing target processing on a target object in a target interface based on a processing parameter corresponding to an input parameter of the first input comprises: scaling down the target interface along the downscaling direction or moving the target interface along the moving direction, so that at least part of the target interface is located in a second touch region (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0046 lines 9-16, and Paragraph 0062 lines 10-17: objects in region TA are moved in a direction of the operating region to locate the objects in the operating region);
and an area of the first touch region is smaller than an area of the second touch region (Paragraph 0046 lines 10-11 and Paragraph 0062 lines 11-12: area TA is smaller than area of operating region).
In regard to claim 4, Kanamaru discloses wherein the processing parameter further comprises target content in the target interface and a target position corresponding to the target content; and the scaling down the target interface along the downscaling direction or moving the target interface along the moving direction, so that at least part of the target interface is located in a second touch region comprises: scaling down the target interface along the downscaling direction or moving the target interface along the moving direction, and displaying the target content in the target interface at a target position of the second touch region (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0046 lines 9-16, and Paragraph 0062 lines 10-17: objects in region TA are moved in a direction of the operating region to locate the objects in the operating region).
In regard to claim 5, Kanamaru discloses wherein before the displaying the target content in the target interface at a target position of the second touch region, the method further comprises: filtering the target content out from a plurality of pieces of first content in the target interface based on the moving track, wherein the plurality of pieces of first content are displayed outside the second touch region (Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0065: objects outside of the operating region are filtered (e.g. “A”, “B”, “E”, “F” from objects “A”-“H”) for display in the operating region).
In regard to claim 6, Kanamaru discloses wherein in a case of a plurality of pieces of target content, the displaying the target content in the target interface at a target position of the second touch region comprises: determining a display order of the pieces of target content based on the input parameter of the first input; and displaying the pieces of target content at the target position of the second touch region in sequence based on the display order (Paragraph 0104: objects are ordered and displayed along the boundary line of the operating area according to frequency of use).
NOTE: Claim 6 appears to recite a contingent limitation (e.g. “in a case of a plurality of pieces of target content…”) and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the steps when there is not a plurality of pieces of target content. The examiner suggests amending the claim to no longer recite the contingent limitation (e.g. ‘wherein the target content comprises a plurality of pieces of target content…”) in order to avoid an overlay broad interpretation of the claim. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has examined the claim as though the contingent limitation is met and therefore the steps are required. However, in subsequent actions, if the current claim language is maintained, the claim may be rejected based upon the broader interpretation.
In regard to claim 7, Kanamaru discloses wherein the display order is associated with historical big data of the pieces of target content (Paragraph 0042 lines 4-11 and Paragraph 0104: frequency of use).
In regard to claims 10-16, device claims 10-16 correspond generally to method claims 1-7, respectively, and recite similar features in device form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 19 and 20, medium claims 19 and 20 correspond generally to method claims 1 and 2, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
6. Claim(s) 8, 9, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamaru (US 2019/0287492 A1) and further in view of Bae et al. (US 2014/0351761 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Kanamaru discloses wherein after the displaying the target content in the target interface at a target position of the second touch region, the method further comprises: in a case that a second input for the target content is received, controlling the target interface to restore display in an initial display region (Paragraph 0064 lines 8-21: based on an input, the objects are returned to their original positions).
While Kanamaru teaches in a case that a second input for the target content is received, controlling the target interface to restore display in an initial display region, they fail to show the based on a content type of the target content, controlling the target interface to restore display in an initial display region or controlling the target interface to remain in a current display region, as recited in the claims. Bae teaches target content similar to that of Kanamaru. In addition, Bae further teaches
restoring a target interface when input for target content is with respect to a termination icon and maintaining target interface when the input is with respect to a function icon (Fig. 2 elements 210, 220, and 230, Fig. 8, Paragraph 0047, Paragraph 0048, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0069, and Paragraph 0070: restore is performed when for a first content type (e.g. termination icon) and interface is maintained for a second content type (e.g. application icon)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kanamaru and Bae before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the in a case that a second input for the target content is received, controlling the target interface to restore display in an initial display region taught by Kanamaru to include the restoring a target interface when input for target content is with respect to a termination icon and maintaining target interface when the input is with respect to a function of Bae, in order to obtain wherein after the displaying the target content in the target interface at a target position of the second touch region, the method further comprises: in a case that a second input for the target content is received, based on a content type of the target content, controlling the target interface to restore display in an initial display region or controlling the target interface to remain in a current display region. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as performing a function in the target interface would have been obtained, as suggested by Bae (Paragraph 0047 and Paragraph 0070 lines 12-14).
NOTE: Claim 8 appears to recite a contingent limitation (e.g. “in a case that a second input for the target content is received…”) and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the steps when a second input for the target content is not received. The examiner suggests amending the claim to no longer recite the contingent limitation (e.g. “receiving a second input for the target content…”) in order to avoid an overlay broad interpretation of the claim. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has examined the claim as though the contingent limitation is met and therefore the steps are required. However, in subsequent actions, if the current claim language is maintained, the claim may be rejected based upon the broader interpretation.
In regard to claim 9, Bae further discloses controlling a target interface to restore display in a case that the target content is a first type of content, wherein the first type of content is able to respond to a single operation input (Paragraph 0049: termination icon that responds to single selection); and controlling the target interface to remain in a current display region in a case that the target content is a second type of content, wherein the second type of content is able to respond to a plurality of times of operation input (Paragraph 0048 and Paragraph 0070: application icon that allows for additional input). Accordingly, the combinations further teaches controlling the target interface to restore display in the initial display region in a case that the target content is a first type of content, wherein the first type of content is able to respond to a single operation input; and controlling the target interface to remain in the current display region in a case that the target content is a second type of content, wherein the second type of content is able to respond to a plurality of times of operation input. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as performing a function in the target interface would have been obtained, as suggested by Bae (Paragraph 0047 and Paragraph 0070 lines 12-14).
In regard to claims 17 and 18, device claims 17 and 18 correspond generally to method claims 8 and 9, respectively, and recite similar features in device form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan et al. (US 2023/0009389 A1), see at least the abstract.
Lee et al. (US 2020/0241707 A1), see at least Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0055.
Terrero et al. (US 2015/0234581 A1), see at least Fig. 1-3 and the abstract.
Lee et al. (US 2013/0237288 A1), see at least Fig. 5, the abstract, and Paragraphs 0098-0107.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
9. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights