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
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 13, 19-22 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit et al. (2014/0129987) in view of Lacroix (2014/0208204).
Regarding claim 1, Feit teaches a computing device (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, para 0003-0021) for controlling a touchscreen (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, para 0003-0021, touch screen), the computing device comprising processing circuitry causing the computing device to become operative to (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, para 0005-0020, a processor):
display a plurality of user-interface, UI, elements on the touchscreen (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, and para 0004-0021, a number of icons), acquire information pertaining to a point of gaze of a user gazing at the touchscreen from a gaze detector (Feit: para 0025 – 0031 and Fig. 1, gaze-tracking or eye tracking info is detected), select at least one of the displayed UI elements based on the point of gaze (Feit: abstract and Fig. 6, entrance/exit zones and icon selection when gaze enters the entrance zone is disclosed.); notifying a user when one of the displayed UI elements is selected (Feig: abstract and Fig. 6, indicate icon is selected 72).
Feit does not explicitly teach a haptic touchscreen and controlling the haptic touchscreen to render the selected UI elements haptically distinguishably from the other UI elements by causing a difference in at least one of: texture, friction, force, or vibration. Lacroix teaches a haptic touchscreen and controlling the haptic touchscreen to render the selected UI elements haptically distinguishably from the other UI elements by causing a difference in at least one of: texture, friction, force, or vibration (Lacroix: Figs 2-4, 17 and abstract, assigning different texture/haptic intensities at different locations of the display such as bitmap/masks is disclosed, which corresponds to rendering one region differently than another. Also, Fig. 12 shows a communication widget texture mask for a text and buttons and edge map.).
They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of an input device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit in view of the teachings of Lacroix so as to output a haptic effect (e.g., different friction/texture/vibration) on the selected icon region as the indication/notification of selection while leaving non-selected UI elements at a baseline haptic state and to provide an improved computing system with a confirmatory tactile feedback and decreased visual load in vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches operative to select at least one of
the displayed UI elements based on respective distances of the displayed UI elements from the point of gaze (Feit: para [0015] - [0020] and Figs. 5 - 6, entrance/exit zones radial (distance-based) areas around elements; selection is based upon whether the gazing position falls within the distance thresholds).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches operative to select at least one of
the displayed UI elements based on the selected at least one UI element being
displayed within a partial area of the touchscreen, the partial area encompassing the point of gaze (Feit: para [0015] - [0020] and Figs. 5 - 6, entrance/exit zones; the entrance zone is exactly such a partial area.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches operative to select at least one of
the displayed UI elements and control the touchscreen to render the selected UI
elements haptically distinguishably from the other UI elements in response to one or
more of: detecting that the user is gazing at the touchscreen Feit: para [0015] - [0020]
and Figs. 5 - 6 and abstract, see also Lacroix), detecting a touch input to the
touchscreen, detecting that an object is approaching the touchscreen, and determining
that the point of gaze is substantially stable.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches operative to control the
touchscreen to render the selected UI elements haptically distinguishably from the other
UI elements by rendering the selected UI elements with haptic properties different from
haptic properties used for rendering the other UI elements (Lacroix: see at least Figs.
12a, 12b and 12c).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches operative to control the
touchscreen to render the selected UI elements haptically distinguishably from the other
UI elements by haptically rendering the selected UI elements but not haptically
rendering the other UI elements (Lacroix: see at least Figs. 12a, 12b and 12c).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the haptic touchscreen being comprised in a vehicle (Feit: para [0015] - [0020] and Figs. 5 - 6 and abstract, see also Lacroix).
Regarding claims 22 and 45, the claims are similarly rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit
in view of Lacroix in further view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No.
2006/0036965).
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not explicitly teach operative to select
at least one additional of the displayed UI elements based on a spatial arrangement of
the displayed UI elements. Harris teaches operative to select at least one additional of
the displayed UI elements based on a spatial arrangement of the displayed UI elements
(Harris: Figs. 2-4; para [0006] - [0010], and [0018] - [0029], spatially displayed logical
groups of controls under a selected tab and the groups are contiguous labeled sections,
see also font, clipboard, etc). They are analogous art because they deal with the same
field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit and
Lacroix in view of the teachings of Harris SO as to provide the predictable result of
faster, safer target acquisition in Feit while preserving Lacroix's confirmation.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches operative to select at least one
additional of the displayed UI elements based on the selected at least one UI element
and the at least one additional UI element being arranged as a group of UI elements
(Harris: Figs. 2-4; para [0006] - [0010], and [0018] - [0029], spatially displayed logical
groups of controls under a selected tab and the groups are contiguous labeled sections,
see also font, clipboard, etc).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches operative to select at least one
additional of the displayed UI elements based on related functionality which is controlled
by the selected at least one UI element and the at least one additional UI element
(Harris: Figs. 2-4; para [0006]- [0035], see also font, clipboard, etc; each logical
grouping is associated with a subset of functionalities associated with the selected tab.
For example, related functions controlled by the controls in that grouping).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches operative to select at least one
additional of the displayed UI elements based on an actuation of a displayed UI element
by the user (Harris: Figs. 2-4; para [0006]- [0035], collapsed group: if a group is
collapsed into a single selectable control, upon receiving a selection of the single
selectable control, showing a menu under the logical grouping).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit in view of Lacroix in further view of Small et al. (2011/0082620).
Regarding claim 10, Feit and Lacroix does not explicitly teach wherein the context information comprises at least one of: weather conditions, ambient noise, road conditions, traffic conditions, a current configuration of a vehicle, or a number of passengers in a vehicle. Small teaches wherein the context information comprises at least one of: weather conditions, ambient noise, road conditions, traffic conditions, a current configuration of a vehicle, or a number of passengers in a vehicle (Small: para 0030-0040, a means for a vehicle user interface to actively adopt to changing conditions, thereby providing the user with a safe, more intuitive, easier-to-user interface and the conditions comprise weather such as rain, fog, snow sleet, etc).
They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit and Lacroix in view of the teachings of Small so as to actively adopt to changing conditions, thereby providing the user with a safe, more intuitive, easier-to-user interface (para 0031).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit in view of Lacroix in further view of Rudchenko et al. (2021/0318794).
Regarding claim 11, the combination does not explicitly teach
operative to adjust one or more of: a size of the selected UI element(s), and a haptic contrast between the selected UI element(s) and the other UI elements, based on a duration of time the user gazes at the touchscreen. Rudchenko teaches operative to adjust one or more of: a size of the selected UI element(s), and a haptic contrast between the selected UI element(s) and the other UE elements, based on a duration of time the user gazes at the touchscreen (Fig. 12 and see also Rudchenko).
They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention
of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit and Lacroix in view of the teachings of Rudchenko so as to achieve the predictable result/improvements (more clear feedback, fewer false positives).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches operative to re-select at least one
of the displayed UI elements based on a change in the point of gaze (Feit: Figs. 5-7,
Lacroix: Fig. 12 and see also Rudchenko, for example, entrance/exit corresponds to
select/deselect).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit in
view of Lacroix in further view of Arrasvuori et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No.
2012/0068941).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Feit and Lacroix teaches all of the
limitations of claim 14 (gaze detect/stop and rendering), with the exception of the
concept of approaching/hovering detection prior to touch. Arrasvuori teaches the
concept of approaching/hovering detection prior to touch (Arrasvuori: abstract and Figs.
1-2 and related descriptions, hovering object is detected). They are analogous art
because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify Feit and Lacroix in view of the teachings of Arrasvuori so as
to improve the functionality of the touch screens although hands are not touching the
input surfaces.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit in view of Lacroix in further view of Levesque et al. (9,196,134).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, with the exception of the concept ceasing haptic effect after a predetermined time. Levesque the concept ceasing haptic effect after a predetermined time (Levesque: Fig. 5, a haptic effect that is localized in time or space (e.g., a brief, abrupt pulse) may be generated to simulate an edge or detent. For example, FIG. 5 illustrates a localized haptic effect based on impulse signal 225. As an object is detected to be at or to cross x.sub.0 on surface 110, the haptic effect may be generated to simulate crossing of an edge or detent located at x.sub.0. The localized haptic effect may cease once the object moves away from x.sub.0 or after a predetermined amount of time has passed since the object passed position x.sub.0. For example, a haptic effect may last for 20 msec after the object passes position x.sub.0.). They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit and Lacroix in view of the teachings of Levesque so as to achieve the predictable result/improvements (an input device with haptic effects).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit in
view of Lacroix in further view of Eden et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0361996).
Regarding claim 16, the combination does not explicitly teach operative to correct
the point of gaze by a gaze-point offset determined based on preceding touch inputs
received by the touchscreen. Eden teaches correct the point of gaze by a gaze-point
offset determined based on preceding touch inputs (Eden: para 0015 - 0020, the eye
tracking system may be calibrated to determine a correction). They are analogous art
because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify Feit and Lacroix in view of the teachings of Eden so as to
provide an improved user input mechanism for a computing system equipped with eye
tracking calibration method.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Feit in view of Lacroix in further view of Chew et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No.
2004/0075695).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 17
(Feit and Lacroix teach the concept of first touch; second touch actuates UI; if within
time and distance thresholds), with the exception of the concept of displaying actuated
UI at the first position. Chew teaches the concept of displaying actuated UI at the first
position (Chew: para 0005 - 0015 and Figs. 4-8, context UI and pop-out appear where
first interaction occurred; also shows dismissal/selection characteristics).
They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a
display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit and Lacroix in view of the
teachings of Chew so as to provide an improved user input mechanism for a computing
system that allows users to activate the full "card" for an entry using one gesture on a
button while also giving the user the ability to reach a menu of context dependent
commands using a second gesture on a button. In particular, the present invention
recognizes certain button inputs as context menu gestures. When these gestures are
made, a context menu appears. The user is then able to select a command in the
context menu that is to be performed. The present invention also allows a user to open
context menus while only using one hand to operate and hold the device.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches wherein the first touch input
triggers an action, the computing device being further operative to detect that the user
reverses the action triggered by the first touch input before the second touch input is
received (Chew: para 0005 - 0015 and Figs. 4-8, context menu dismiss on outside
touch, e.g., reverses opening action, and temporary previews).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim have been considered but not persuasive for the following reasons. With respect to claims 1, 22, and 45, Feit clearly teaches a computing device (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, para 0003-0021) for controlling a touchscreen (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, para 0003-0021, touch screen), the computing device comprising processing circuitry causing the computing device to become operative to (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, para 0005-0020, a processor): display a plurality of user-interface, UI, elements on the touchscreen (Feit: Figs. 1-2, 5-7B, and para 0004-0021, a number of icons), acquire information pertaining to a point of gaze of a user gazing at the touchscreen from a gaze detector (Feit: para 0025 – 0031 and Fig. 1, gaze-tracking or eye tracking info is detected), select at least one of the displayed UI elements based on the point of gaze (Feit: abstract and Fig. 6, entrance/exit zones and icon selection when gaze enters the entrance zone is disclosed.); notifying a user when one of the displayed UI elements is selected (Feig: abstract and Fig. 6, indicate icon is selected 72). Feit does not explicitly teach a haptic touchscreen and controlling the haptic touchscreen to render the selected UI elements haptically distinguishably from the other UI elements by causing a difference in at least one of: texture, friction, force, or vibration. Lacroix teaches a haptic touchscreen and controlling the haptic touchscreen to render the selected UI elements haptically distinguishably from the other UI elements by causing a difference in at least one of: texture, friction, force, or vibration (Lacroix: Figs 2-4, 17 and abstract, assigning different texture/haptic intensities at different locations of the display such as bitmap/masks is disclosed, which corresponds to rendering one region differently than another. Also, Fig. 12 shows a communication widget texture mask for a text and buttons and edge map.).
They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of an input device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feit in view of the teachings of Lacroix so as to output a haptic effect (e.g., different friction/texture/vibration) on the selected icon region as the indication/notification of selection while leaving non-selected
UI elements at a baseline haptic state and to provide an improved computing system with a confirmatory tactile feedback and decreased visual load in vehicle systems.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Feit and Lacroix teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 22 and 45.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEJOON AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-9528. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at 571-272-7677. 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.
/SEJOON AHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights