DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/16/2025.
Claims 1-23 are cancelled.
Claims 24-45 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 24-26, 34-35, 38, and 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prest et al. (US 20080088600 A1), hereinafter Prest in view of Goh (US 20120056821 A1), hereinafter Goh.
In regards to claim(s) 24, Prest teaches a system comprising: a controller operable by a user (Par. [0078]; “Computing device 442 also includes input/output (I/O) controller 456 that may be operatively coupled to processor 457. (I/O) controller 456 may be integrated with processor 457 or it may be a separate component as shown.”); and one or more processors, wherein: the controller comprises a plurality of pressable buttons that are independent of each other (Par. [0004]; “FIG. 1A shows a top view of the click wheel 100 containing five mechanical switches 102 that implement five push buttons.”) and (Par. [0007]; “A processor may be typically employed to generate a signal that represents one of the push buttons being pressed based on the location and force of the user input.”), and one or more sensors configured to detect (a) pressing of at least one of the buttons and (b) approach or contact of a finger of a user to at least one of the plurality of buttons (Par. [0092]; “The sensor arrangement can include a plurality of sensors that may be configured to activate as the finger sits on, taps on or passes over them. In the simplest case, an electrical signal is produced each time the finger is positioned over a sensor.”)
Prest teaches detecting angular position and direction of finger movement across its four button zones using a polar coordinate system (Par. [0033]; “To determine whether the top button or the left button is pressed by the circle, one approach is to identify the four quadrants marked by the dotted lines 45°, 135°, 225°, and 315°. For example, in order to generate a top button press, centroid 219, for example, would fall between the quadrant marked by the 45° and 135° lines in a counterclockwise direction.”) and (Par. [0067]; “The number of signals in a given time frame may indicate location, direction, speed and acceleration of the finger on touch pad 434, i.e.,…the signals may be monitored by an electronic interface that converts the number, combination and frequency of the signals into location, direction, speed and acceleration information.”) and (Par. [0075]; ” Control system 450 may include an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) that may be configured to monitor the signals from sensors 448, to compute the angular location, direction, speed and acceleration of the monitored signals and to report this information to a processor of computing device 442.”). Prest doesn’t explicitly teach clockwise and counter-clockwise movement operation based on a first and second processing.
However, Goh teaches tracking touch point on a touch sensitive surface to determine whether it is a clockwise or counterclockwise motion (Abstract and Par. [0006]; “The method of the present invention includes extracting parameters to indicate clockwise or counter-clockwise motion of circular gestures made anywhere on a touch sensitive surface.”) thereby teaching when a movement operation to sequentially approach or contact at least two buttons with the finger of the user is performed, the one or more processors is/are configured to perform: first processing when an order of the buttons approached or contacted in the movement operation is a clockwise order, and second processing when an order of the buttons approached or contacted in the movement operation is a counterclockwise order.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Prest and Goh as they are in the same field of touch-based input gesture recognition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Goh’s clockwise/counter-clockwise conditional pressing to Prest’s directional button zone/s system to determine the order the order of buttons approached or contacted for a specific movement operation.
In regards to claim(s) 25, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein: the first processing comprises moving a cursor for selection of at least one of a plurality of shown items (Par. [0073]; “As shown in FIG. 8B, touch pad 434 generates tracking signals when an object such as a user's finger is moved over the top surface of the touch pad in the x, y plane.”), and the second processing comprises moving the cursor in a different direction than the first processing (Par. [0082]; “As should be appreciated, the button functions generated by pressing on each button zone may include selecting an item on the screen, opening a file or document, executing instructions, starting a program, viewing a menu, and/or the like. The button functions may also include functions that make it easier to navigate through the electronic system, as for example, zoom, scroll, open different menus, home the input pointer, perform keyboard related actions such as enter, delete, insert, page up/down, and the like.”).
In regards to claim(s) 26, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein: the plurality of buttons comprise at least three buttons, and the movement operation comprises the finger of the user sequentially approaching or contacting the at least three buttons (Par. [0081]; “Any number of button zones may be used, for example, two or more, four, eight, etc. In the illustrated embodiment, touch pad 472 includes four button zones 474 (i.e., zones A-D).”) and (Par. [0092]; “The sensor arrangement can include a plurality of sensors that may be configured to activate as the finger sits on, taps on or passes over them.).
In regards to claim(s) 34, Prest teaches the system according to claim 31, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the third processing based on pressing of a button last approached or contacted in the movement operation before lapse of a predetermined time period since the finger of the user moved away from the button (Par. [0067]; “The number of signals in a given time frame may indicate location, direction, speed and acceleration of the finger on touch pad 434, i.e., the more signals, the more the user moved his or her finger. In most cases, the signals may be monitored by an electronic interface that converts the number, combination and frequency of the signals into location, direction, speed and acceleration information.”)
In regards to claim(s) 35, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured such that the one or more processors do not perform processing in accordance with an operation by the user simply in response to approach or contact of the finger of the user alone to one of the buttons (Par. [0073]; “touch pad 434 generates both positional information and a movement indicator generates a signal indicating that touch pad 434 has moved. The positional information and the movement indication are combined to form a button command.”) and (Par. [0077]; “Processor 457 may be configured to receive input from both switch 446 and touch pad 444 and can form a signal/command that may be dependent upon both of these inputs.”) and (Par. [0064]; “Touch pad 434 can provide location information for an object in contact with or in proximity to the touch pad. This information can be used in combination with information provided by a movement indicator to generate a single command’)
In regards to claim(s) 38, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein: the plurality of buttons comprise four buttons, and the four buttons are annularly arranged. (Par. [0081]; “Any number of button zones may be used, for example, two or more, four, eight, etc. In the illustrated embodiment, touch pad 472 includes four button zones 474 (i.e., zones A-D);” (Par. [0095]; “The shape of touch pad 700 may also be widely varied. Although shown as circular, the touch pad may also be square, rectangular, triangular, and the like. More particularly, the touch pad is annular, i.e., shaped like or forming a ring.”) and Figs. 1A-1C and Fig. 10 presents touch pad with four button zones arranged annularly).
PNG
media_image1.png
877
1236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim(s) 42, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein: the one or more processors is/are configured to perform processing and output an image generated by the performed processing, and the first processing and/or the second processing comprises changing an outputted image (Par. [0082]; “As should be appreciated, the button functions generated by pressing on each button zone may include selecting an item on the screen, opening a file or document, executing instructions, starting a program, viewing a menu, and/or the like.”) and (Par. [0091]; “Media player 702 also can include display screen 724 and related circuitry. The display screen 724 may be used to display a graphical user interface as well as other information to the user (e.g., text, objects, graphics).”) and (Par. [0065]; “In most cases, the signals produced by touch pad 434 can direct movement on the display screen in a direction similar to the direction of the finger as it is moved across the surface of touch pad 434.”)
In regards to claim(s) 43-45, the claims recite the same limitations as claim(s) 24. An information processing apparatus and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recite the same functional operations disclosed by Prest (Par. [0080]; “In most cases, processor 457 together with an operating system operates to execute computer code and produce and use data. The computer code and data may reside within program storage area 462 that may be operatively coupled to processor 457. Program storage area 462 can generally provide a place to hold data that is being used by computing device 442.”) and is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim(s) is/are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claim(s) 24.
Claims 27-28, 30-32, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prest (US 20080088600 A1), in view of Goh (US 20120056821 A1), and further in view of Hotelling (US 20060197753 A1), hereinafter Hotelling.
In regards to claim(s) 27, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the first processing and/or the second processing based on pressing subsequent to the movement operation, of at least one of the plurality of buttons or a button different from the plurality of buttons. (Par. [0093]; “The button zones are configured to provide one or more dedicated control functions for making selections or issuing commands associated with operating media player 702. By way of example, in the case of an MP3 music player, the button functions may be associated with opening a menu, playing a song, fast forwarding a song, seeking through a menu, making selections and the like. In most cases, the button functions are implemented via a mechanical clicking action.”)
In regards to claim(s) 28, Prest teaches considering finger position history to confirm a button press in the region where the finger has most recently moved to (Par. [0034]; “In other approaches, the method may further take into consideration the history of the user's finger (or the stylus) positions. For example, if the user's finger is previously recorded in a first region, the method may require the touch sensors to establish the user's finger has moved to a second region before a button press in the second region may be confirmed. In this manner, errors introduced by sudden jitters or a slippery finger may be avoided.”). Prest’s finger historical trajectory is used to confirm which button is last in sequence, and the press is credited to the last reached region.
Prest does not explicitly state the system according to claim 27, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the first processing and/or the second processing based on pressing subsequent to the movement operation, of a button last approached or contacted in the movement operation.
However, Hotelling teaches the position at which the finger is when the hard click occurs, e.g., the button last approached, is what determines the action (FIGS. 27A-27E; “touchdown location;”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Prest and Hotelling because they are both in the same field of handheld touch sensitive controllers. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Hotelling’s last position determination action into Prest’s directional zone system to require pressing the last contacted button to trigger the first or second processing.
In regards to claim(s) 30, Prest teaches the system according to claim 27, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the first processing and/or the second processing based on pressing of a button last approached or contacted in the movement operation before lapse of a predetermined time period since the finger of the user moved away from the button (Par. [0034]; “In other approaches, the method may further take into consideration the history of the user's finger (or the stylus) positions. For example, if the user's finger is previously recorded in a first region, the method may require the touch sensors to establish the user's finger has moved to a second region before a button press in the second region may be confirmed.”).
In regards to claim(s) 31, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform third processing based on pressing of a button of the plurality of buttons after the first processing is performed (Par. [0082] discloses multiple distinct button functions per zone; “In the case of a music player, one of the button zones may be used to access a menu on the display screen, a second button zone may be used to seek forward through a list of songs or fast forward through a currently playing song, a third button zone may be used to seek backwards through a list of songs or fast rearward through a currently playing song, and a fourth button zone may be used to pause or stop a song that is being played.”) and (Par. [0093]; “In addition to above, the touch pad may also include one or more movable buttons zones A-D as well as a center button E. The button zones are configured to provide one or more dedicated control functions for making selections or issuing commands”)
In regards to claim(s) 32, Prest teaches the system according to claim 31, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the third processing whichever button of the plurality of buttons may be pressed (Par. [0054]; “In the examples shown in FIGS. 7A-7C, first dome switch 622 may be activated by a user pressing anywhere around click wheel 624, and second dome switch 626 may be activated by depressing center button 628.”) and (Par. [0058]; “When a user depresses anywhere on click wheel 624, it gimbals in area 632 and the force applied by the user is conveyed to inverted dome switch 622”). Prest explicitly teaches that pressing anywhere on the click wheel activates a function regardless of exact position.
In regards on claim(s) 41, Prest teaches a gesture button processing system but does not teach the system according to claim 39, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform identical first processing in both of a case where the finger of the user approaches or contacts one of the third button and the fourth button and a case where the finger of the user approaches or contacts both of the third button and the fourth button.
However, Hotelling teaches that the same gesture recognition mode remains active regardless of whether the gesture is performed with multiple fingers and regardless of whether the number of fingers change during the gesture (Col. 9, lines 6-10; “Alternatively, any number of fingers, i.e., more than one, may be used for the same gesture mode, which can include one or more gesture controls. ”).It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Hotelling’s independent contact gesture processing with Prest’s touch input system so that the same initial gesture processing is performed whether one or both adjacent contact regions are activated which would improve accuracy of variations in user touch behavior while not disrupting gesture recognition.
Claim(s) 29, 33 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prest (US 20080088600 A1), in view of Goh (US 20120056821 A1), further in view of Hotelling (US 20060197753 A1), and further in view of VanWyk et al. (US 20210252388 A1), hereinafter VanWyk.
In regards to claim(s) 29 and 33, Prest teaches combining touchpad signals with movement detector signals to generate button command (Par. [0072]; “A movement detector signals that touch pad 434 has been depressed, and touch pad 434 signals a location on the platform that has been touched. By combining both the movement detector signals and touch pad signals, touch pad 434 acts like multiple buttons such that depressing the touch pad at different locations corresponds to different buttons.”) and (Par. [0093] ; “The button zones are configured to provide one or more dedicated control functions for making selections or issuing commands associated with operating media player 702. By way of example, in the case of an MP3 music player, the button functions may be associated with opening a menu, playing a song, fast forwarding a song, seeking through a menu, making selections and the like. In most cases, the button functions are implemented via a mechanical clicking action.”)and (Par. [0093] ; “The button zones are configured to provide one or more dedicated control functions for making selections or issuing commands associated with operating media player 702. By way of example, in the case of an MP3 music player, the button functions may be associated with opening a menu, playing a song, fast forwarding a song, seeking through a menu, making selections and the like. In most cases, the button functions are implemented via a mechanical clicking action.”)
Prest does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 27, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the first processing and/or the second processing based on pressing of a button last in the movement operation while the finger of the user has approached or contacted the button; or the system according to claim 31, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the third processing based on pressing of a button last in the movement operation while the finger of the user has approached or contacted the button.
However, VanWyk teaches combining touch senor data with switch actuation data to confirm both the presence and location of a touch while the switch is depressed (Col. 15, lines 64-67 and Col. 16, lines 1-4; “the touch sensor 808 and data as generated by the switches 804 may be combined to determine the presence of a touch at the control 800. For example, touch data generated by the touch sensor 808 may be used in combination with selection data generated by the switches 804 (or a switch that is depressed) to confirm the presence of a touch at the control 800 and/or the location of the touch on the control 800.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Prest and VanWyk because they are both in the same field of handheld touch sensitive controllers. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to apply VanWyk’s simultaneous touch and press detection to Prest’s system to perform a function based on the last pressed button while a finger has approached or contacted a button.
In regards to claim(s) 36, Prest teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein: the controller is configured to be held by the user (Par. [0088]; “In one embodiment, the media player can be a handheld device that is sized for placement into a pocket of the user.), and the plurality of buttons are provided in a first area where the plurality of buttons are operable with one finger of the user who holds the controller”) and (Par. [0092]; “Touch pad 700 can generally consist of touchable outer surface 731 for receiving a finger for manipulation on touch pad 730.”).
In regards to claim(s) 37, Prest teaches a controller system with a plurality of pressable buttons placed in multiple zones but does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 36, wherein: a plurality of pressable buttons that are independent of each other are provided in a second area different from the first area, and the plurality of buttons provided in the first area and the plurality of buttons provided in the second area are configured to independently detect the movement operation onto the plurality of buttons.
However, VanWyk explicitly teaches a controller having buttons separated in different regions (FIG. 5 and Col. 13-14; lines 60-67 and line 1; “As compared to the controller 100, the controller 500 may include a left joystick 506, a left trackpad 508, and/or a left D-pad 510 (e.g., in the form of four separate buttons) controllable by a left thumb of the user. The controller 500 may also include a right joystick 512, a right trackpad 514, and/or one or more right buttons 516 controllable by a right thumb of the user. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 5, the trackpads 508 and 514 may be circular-shaped trackpads.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply VanWyk’s separate button regions into Prest’s system would result in the system being able to independently detect the operation movement of the corresponding buttons of each region. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Prest’s system to improve input functionality through independent detection of button operations in different regions.
PNG
media_image2.png
369
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prest et al. (US 20080088600 A1), in view of Goh (US 20120056821 A1), and further in view of Reuben et al. (US 20220291778 A1), hereinafter Reuben.
In regards to claim(s) 39, Prest teaches a four button annularly arranged with polar coordinate based zone detection (Par. [0033]; “FIG. 2D illustrates a method for determining angular accuracy of a user's press in a polar coordinate system according to some embodiments of the present disclosure… For example, in order to generate a top button press, centroid 219, for example, would fall between the quadrant marked by the 45° and 135° lines in a counterclockwise direction. Similarly, the left button can be defined by the region between the 135° and 225° lines, the bottom button can be defined by the region between the 225° and 315° lines, and the right button can be defined by the region between the 315° and 45° lines.”).
Prest does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 38, wherein when the movement operation is such that the finger of the user moves from a first button among the four buttons to approach or contact a second button different from a third button and a fourth button adjacent to the first button, the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the first processing based on approach or contact of the finger of the user to the third button and the fourth button among the four buttons.
However, Reuben teaches a sensing component that tracks finger movement from one button to any neighboring button (Par. [0028]; “In some embodiments, multiple buttons have a single capacitance-sensing flex component positioned beneath them, and the component includes multiple interconnected sections that correspond to the positions of at least two of the buttons' outer surfaces. The interconnected sections can be positioned adjacent to each other (or partially overlapping each other) so that a single touch gesture movement, from a first button to a neighboring button across a threshold or gap between the buttons, can be tracked seamlessly, such as if the buttons collectively formed a single track pad.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Prest and Reuben because they are both in the same field of touch sensitive handheld controllers. One of ordinary skill in the art recognize that applying Reuben’s multiple buttons contact tracking to Prest’s four zone annular button arrangement would result to detecting and process contact with any adjacent buttons passed during a movement operation.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prest (US 20080088600 A1), in view of Goh (US 20120056821 A1), further in view of Reuben (US 20220291778 A1), and further in view of Rekimoto et al. (JP 2004355606 A), hereinafter Rekimoto.
In regards to claim(s) 40, the claim is dependent on claim 39 and adds the limitation the system according to claim 39, wherein the one or more processors is/are configured to perform the first processing based on approach or contact of the finger of the user to both of the third button and the fourth button.
Prest and Reuben collectively establish detecting finger movement of neighboring buttons arranged annularly (see claim 39), but do not explicitly teach contact of a finger to multiple buttons to perform a function. However, Rekimoto teaches assigning a function when two buttons have been simultaneously contacted (Pg. 11, par. [1]; “a state in which two adjacent buttons 921a and 921b are simultaneously When it is determined that the touched state is different from the touched state, a total of 13 states of 6 states of ABCDEF and 7 states of AB, CD, EF, AC, BD, CE, and DF are recognized and input becomes possible.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Prest, Reuben, and Rekimoto as all references are in the same field of handheld touch sensitive controllers. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that requiring contact with both adjacent buttons before triggering a function would increase detection accuracy and reduce activation errors.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 24-45 is/are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUSHIRA MUSA whose telephone number is (571)272-9156. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 5712701344. 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.
/B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights