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 non-final rejection is in response to the application filed on: 10/21/2024.
It is noted that claim 8 has been interpreted to invoke 112(f), however if the applicant amends to remove 112(f) interpretation, there is a potential that the claim would then be rejected under 35 USC 101 for being non-statutory (should the applicant’s amendment be devoid of hardware), as the claim could potentially be directed to a ‘computer program per se’ for a terminal program performing the claimed receiver operations.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 10/21/2024 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 and 04/01/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a slide operation receiver that receives …” and “a hold operation receiver that receives …” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 2 and 8 is 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.
With regards to claim 2, it is noted that claim 1 requires a slide operation being performed FIRST, and then claim 2 appears to be follow claim 1 by reciting recognizing a tap gesture. It is noted that this is indefinite in view of the specification, as clearly shown in Fig. 10: a tap is checked PRIOR a slide event occurring (step S1 occurs before s2). Thus it is not clear on the order of when a tap occurs in the claim language. Furthermore the examiner notes that s1 for a tap in fig 10 is mutually exclusive from the first AND second limitation in claim 1 for checking a hold for a threshold. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume a tap occurring independent of the slide. Correction is required to resolve this logical ambiguity.
In claim 8, the claim’s limitations “a slide operation receiver that receives …” and “a hold operation receiver that receives …” 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.
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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because :
With regards to 7, it recites a “recording medium storing thereon …”, which encompasses transitory/signal media since the instant application’s specification openly describes the medium. The claim is thus not statutory since signal/transitory media is not statutory (see MPEP 2106 below):
“Claim interpretation affects the evaluation of both criteria for eligibility. For example, in Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 112 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017), claim interpretation was crucial to the court’s determination that claims to a "machine-readable medium" were not to a statutory category. In Mentor Graphics, the court interpreted the claims in light of the specification, which expressly defined the medium as encompassing "any data storage device" including random-access memory and carrier waves. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility”
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 2 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
“when an image related to the slide operation and a hold operation is tapped, a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed.”
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating a tap event associated with the image has occurred.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of
“ a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed” – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ , see MPEP 2106.05(g): “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
It is noted that claim 2 depends upon claim 1, which recites limitations directed to ‘receiving … a slide operation …’, ‘receiving … an operation …’. – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’, see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
It is also noted claim 2 depends upon claim 1, which also recites ‘ … by a terminal …’ limitations. These additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“ a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed” – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ , see MPEP 2106.05(g): “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
It is noted that claim 2 depends upon claim 1, which recites limitations directed to ‘receiving … a slide operation …’, ‘receiving … an operation …’. – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’, see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
It is also noted claim 2 depends upon claim 1, which also recites ‘ … by a terminal …’ limitations. These additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
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) 1, 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon et al (US Application: US 20100257490, published: Oct. 7, 2010, filed: Apr. 3, 2009) in view of Yu et al (US Application: US 20180302786, published: Oct. 18, 2018, filed: Oct. 8, 2015).
With regards to claim 1, Lyon et al teaches An operation method comprising:
receiving, by a terminal (paragraph 0169: a terminal is implemented having a memory and processor) a slide operation of an image displayed on a display from a first position to a second position (paragraph 0013, Fig. 4G-Fig 4I: an image of a lock is displayed at a starting first position and can be slid to a second target position beyond a threshold boundary, such as beyond a line 404);
However, Lyon et al does not expressly teach .. and receiving, by the terminal, an operation for a specific process when a finger is held in the second position without being released from the display for a certain period of time.
Yet Yu et al teaches .. and receiving, by the terminal, an operation for a specific process when a finger is held in the second position without being released from the display for a certain period of time (Fig. 4, paragraph 0047: when a gesture gets slid into the final target position, a check is performed to ensure the touch from the finger is held at the target position (claimed second position) without being released for a particular preset duration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Lyon et al’s ability to perform/execute a function (such as unlock) when a user moves an image from a first position to a second target position, such that the target position can be modified to also check for a hold duration in order to perform the function/unlock, as taught by Yu et al. The combination would have allowed Lyon et al to have reduced the chances of unintentional activation (of a function) (paragraph 0013).
With regards to Claim 3, The operation method according to claim 1, Lyon et al teaches wherein when the finger is released from the display before the image is slid to the second position, the image returns to the first position (paragraph 0015: when the finger is released before the image/slider reaches the target position, the image returns to the origin (claimed first position).
With regards to Claim 7, Lyon et al and Yu et al teaches a recording medium storing thereon a program for causing a terminal to execute processing, the processing comprising: receiving a slide operation of an image displayed on a display from a first position to a second position; and receiving an operation for a specific process when a finger is held in the second position without being released from the display for a certain period of time, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to Claim 8, Lyon et al and Yu et al teaches A terminal comprising: a slide operation receiver that receives a slide operation of an image displayed on a display from a first position to a second position; and a hold operation receiver that receives an operation for a specific process when a finger is held in the second position without being released from the display for a certain period of time, as similarly explained in the rejection for claim 1 , and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon et al (US Application: US 20100257490, published: Oct. 7, 2010, filed: Apr. 3, 2009) in view of Yu et al (US Application: US 20180302786, published: Oct. 18, 2018, filed: Oct. 8, 2015) in view of Fleizach et al (US Application: US 2014/0215410, published: Jul. 31, 2014, filed: Feb. 28, 2013).
With regards to Claim 2, The operation method according to claim 1, Lyon et al and Yu et al teaches wherein when an image related to the slide operation and a hold operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Lyon et al and Yu et al does not expressly teach … is tapped, a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed.
Yet Fleizach et al teaches … is tapped, a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed (paragraph 0018, 0020, 0021: a confirmation image is displayed to inquire about deploying a specific process after initial tap (selection of a slide-toggle switch/button)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Lyon et al and Yu et al’s ability to process user input to initiate a process via a gesture input interface, such that the interface would have further supported a tap of a button /switch) and presented an additional image to prompt the user whether to execute the process, as taught by Fleizach et al. The combination would have allowed confirmation of an action for activating a program/process (Fleizach et al, paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon et al (US Application: US 20100257490, published: Oct. 7, 2010, filed: Apr. 3, 2009) in view of Yu et al (US Application: US 20180302786, published: Oct. 18, 2018, filed: Oct. 8, 2015) in view of Bernstein et al (US Application: US 2015/0149964, published: May 28, 2015, filed: Jan. 29, 2015).
With regards to Claim 4, The operation method according to claim 1, Lyon et al and Yu et al teaches wherein when the finger is released from the display before a certain period of time elapses (as explained in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Lyon et al and Yu et al teaches acknowledging a user’s request to initiate a function based upon an entered finger gesture), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed.
Yet Bernstein et al teaches before the certain period of time elapses … a confirmation image that inquires whether to execute the specific process is displayed (Figure 5A, paragraph 0194: execution of a desired function is prompted for verification should the user touch input to perform the desired function continue to be less than a particular period of time/contact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Lyon et al and Yu et al’s ability to allow a user to invoke a function upon a target threshold of contact time is reached, such that the function being invoked could initially and additionally provide a prompt that will be continue to be displayed while the contact is less than the target threshold, as taught by Bernstein et al. The combination would have allowed an ability to help ensure the user does not accidentally activate a control (Bernstein et al, paragraph 0191).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon et al (US Application: US 20100257490, published: Oct. 7, 2010, filed: Apr. 3, 2009) in view of Yu et al (US Application: US 20180302786, published: Oct. 18, 2018, filed: Oct. 8, 2015) in view of Cormican (US Application: US 20180160165, published: Jun. 7 , 2018, filed: Dec. 6, 2016) .
With regards to Claim 5, The operation method according to claim 1, Lyon et al and Yu et al teaches wherein after the image is slid to the second position, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … a guidance image for a user to perform a hold operation is displayed until the certain period of time elapses.
Yet Cormican teaches … a guidance image for a user to perform a hold operation is displayed until the certain period of time elapses (paragraph 0044, Figure 5: a guidance timer is displayed upon long hold, which progressively grows into a circle until the period elapses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Lyon et al and Yu et al’s ability to processing sliding of the image to a second target position and checking for a hold at the second/target position, such that an image is presented while checking for the hold, as taught by Cormican. The combination would have reduced the number of gestures/button-presses needed when interacting with an application while also informing the user of a state of the hold.
With regards to Claim 6, The operation method according to claim 1, the combination of Lyon et al, Yu et al and Cormican teaches the combination of wherein after the image is slid to the second position, an image indicating a process of completing the receiving of the operation for the specific process is displayed until the certain period of time elapses, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5 (as explained, Lyon et al and Yu et al’s ability to identify a hold is taking place at a second/target position was further modified with Cormican’s teaches to display an additional image indicating progress upon the hold identification), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huska et al (US Application: 20110227872): This reference teaches a touchpad with capacitive force sensing.
Xu (US Application: US 20210223920): This reference teaches a slide to hold gesture and executing a target function upon a hold reaching a threshold amount of time.
Blachly et al (US Patent: 10503264): This reference teaches a slide to hold gesture that will execute a target function upon a hold reaching a threshold amount of time.
Wang et al (US Application: US 20130063380): This reference teaches a user interface having a lock state and an object to change the lock state to a release state being displayed on a screen based on a touch gesture being assessed against a threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights