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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8,13,14,18-25,30,31, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOPKINS et al (US 5,097,891).
Regarding claim 1, HOPKINS discloses a user interface for controlling settings of an irrigation controller (abstract), the user interface comprising: a housing (Figure 1); a display screen 96 (Figure 1); a multi-function rotary dial 90 coupled to the housing and configured to be rotated and pressed (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9); and a control circuit configured to execute code to receive user input based on rotation of the multi- function rotary dial by a user and based on depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, and to cause content to be responsively displayed to the user on the display screen (Figure 12; col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9, col. 7, line 24-35).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the rotation and depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user allows the user to navigate a menu displayed to the user on the display screen (Figure 12; col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9, col. 7, line 24-35).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the rotation and depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user allows the user to select data in a menu displayed to the user on the display screen, to input the data into the menu displayed to the user on the display screen, or to edit the data in the menu displayed to the user on the display screen (Figure 12; col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9, col. 7, line 24-35).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the rotation or depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to allow the user to input or edit, through a combination of rotation and depression of the multi-function rotary dial, one or more of: menu options, area selection, manual watering, watering days, start times, watering duration, station name, station number, diagnostics, status options, alarm selections, watering status, station selection, station group selection, water budget, and water budget percentage (Figure 2-6; col. 7, line 54-65).
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle a cursor between user-selectable fields within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to initiate a value selection mode of a user- selectable field pointed to by the cursor (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle between user-selectable input values within the user-selectable fields (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to select a user-selectable input value to be input into the user-selectable field (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 13, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the multi-function rotary dial does not include a visual position indicator configured to be aligned, by the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial, with at least one visual irrigation controller function indicator on the housing (Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein a rotation of the multi-function rotary dial causes a cursor displayed to the user on the display screen to move from a first user-selectable field to a second user-selectable field located immediately below or next to the first user-selectable field (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 18, HOPKINS discloses a method controlling settings of an irrigation controller (abstract), the method comprising: by a control circuit of a user interface of the irrigation controller, the user interface comprising a housing, a display screen 96, a multi-function rotary dial 90 coupled to the housing and configured to be rotated and pressed (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9): executing code to receive user input based on rotation of the multi- function rotary dial by a user and based on depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, and causing content to be responsively displayed to the user on the display screen (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9, col. 7, line 24-35).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the rotation and depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user allows the user to navigate a menu displayed to the user on the display screen (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9, col. 7, line 24-35).
Regarding claim 20, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the rotation and depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user allows the user to select data in a menu displayed to the user on the display screen, to input the data into the menu displayed to the user on the display screen, or to edit the data in the menu displayed to the user on the display screen (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9, col. 7, line 24-35).
Regarding claim 21, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the rotation or depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to allow the user to input or edit, through a combination of rotation and depression of the multi-function rotary dial, one or more of: menu options, area selection, manual watering, watering days, start times, watering duration, station name, station number, diagnostics, status options, alarm selections, watering status, station selection, station group selection, water budget, and water budget percentage (Figure 2-6; col. 7, line 54-65).
Regarding claim 22, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle a cursor between user-selectable fields within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 23, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to initiate a value selection mode of a user- selectable field pointed to by the cursor (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 24, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle between user-selectable input values within the user-selectable fields (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 25, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the depression of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to select a user-selectable input value to be input into the user-selectable field (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 30, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein the multi-function rotary dial has no visual position indicator configured to be aligned, by the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial, with at least one visual irrigation controller function indicator on the housing (Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 31, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses wherein a rotation of the multi-function rotary dial causes a cursor displayed to the user on the display screen to move from a first user-selectable field to a second user-selectable field located immediately below or next to the first user-selectable field (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOPKINS et al (US 5,097,891) in view of VAN OS (US 2003/0128192).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple value increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle between user-selectable input values within the user-selectable fields by incrementing/decrementing multiple values per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial. In a similar field of endeavor, VAN OS discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple value increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle between user-selectable input values within the user-selectable fields by incrementing/decrementing multiple values per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial (paragraph 26,27,30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of VAN OS, since VAN OS states that such a modification would increases search speed of an entry of a long sorted list. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by VAN OS.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple field increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle a cursor between user-selectable fields within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen by incrementing/decrementing multiple user-selectable fields per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial. In a similar field of endeavor, VAN OS discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple field increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle a cursor between user-selectable fields within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen by incrementing/decrementing multiple user-selectable fields per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial (paragraph 26,27,30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of VAN OS, since VAN OS states that such a modification would increases search speed of an entry of a long sorted list. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by VAN OS.
Regarding claim 26, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple value increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle between user-selectable input values within the user-selectable fields by incrementing/decrementing multiple values per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial. In a similar field of endeavor, VAN OS discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple value increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle between user-selectable input values within the user-selectable fields by incrementing/decrementing multiple values per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial (paragraph 26,27,30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of VAN OS, since VAN OS states that such a modification would increases search speed of an entry of a long sorted list. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by VAN OS.
Regarding claim 27, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple field increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle a cursor between user-selectable fields within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen by incrementing/decrementing multiple user-selectable fields per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial. In a similar field of endeavor, VAN OS discloses wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to activation of a multiple field increment/decrement feature and the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial by the user, to toggle a cursor between user-selectable fields within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen by incrementing/decrementing multiple user-selectable fields per rotation position of the multi-function rotary dial (paragraph 26,27,30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of VAN OS, since VAN OS states that such a modification would increases search speed of an entry of a long sorted list. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by VAN OS.
Claim(s) 12,15,29,32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOPKINS et al (US 5,097,891) in view of CHOI (US 2021/0362603).
Regarding claim 12, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose wherein the multi-function rotary dial has no defined rotational stop positions, such that the multi-function rotary dial is permitted to freely make a full 360- degree rotation clockwise or counterclockwise without stopping. In a similar field of endeavor, CHOI discloses wherein the multi-function rotary dial has no defined rotational stop positions, such that the multi-function rotary dial is permitted to freely make a full 360- degree rotation clockwise or counterclockwise without stopping (paragraph 115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of CHOI, since the use of fully rotatable input dials is well known and conventional in the art and allows continuous scrolling of a user interface. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by CHOI.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed causes the cursor displayed to the user on the display screen to move from the first user-selectable field to a third user-selectable field (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9). However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose the first user-selectable field to a third user-selectable field that is not located immediately below or next to the first user-selectable field, but that is located a predetermined number of increments away from the first user-selectable fields. In a similar field of endeavor, CHOI discloses the first user-selectable field to a third user-selectable field that is not located immediately below or next to the first user-selectable field, but that is located a predetermined number of increments away from the first user-selectable fields (Figure 9; paragraph 129, 135). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of CHOI, since CHOI states that such a modification would provide automatic position changes of a cursor based on detected conditions of an input device. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by CHOI.
Regarding claim 29, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose wherein the multi-function rotary dial has no defined rotational stop positions, such that the multi-function rotary dial is permitted to freely make a full 360- degree rotation clockwise or counterclockwise without stopping. In a similar field of endeavor, CHOI discloses wherein the multi-function rotary dial has no defined rotational stop positions, such that the multi-function rotary dial is permitted to freely make a full 360- degree rotation clockwise or counterclockwise without stopping (paragraph 115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of CHOI, since the use of fully rotatable input dials is well known and conventional in the art and allows continuous scrolling of a user interface. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by CHOI.
Regarding claim 32, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed causes the cursor displayed to the user on the display screen to move from the first user-selectable field to a third user-selectable field (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9). However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose the first user-selectable field to a third user-selectable field that is not located immediately below or next to the first user-selectable field, but that is located a predetermined number of increments away from the first user-selectable fields. In a similar field of endeavor, CHOI discloses the first user-selectable field to a third user-selectable field that is not located immediately below or next to the first user-selectable field, but that is located a predetermined number of increments away from the first user-selectable fields (Figure 9; paragraph 129, 135). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of CHOI, since CHOI states that such a modification would provide automatic position changes of a cursor based on detected conditions of an input device. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by CHOI.
Claim(s) 16, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOPKINS et al (US 5,097,891) in view of RICKLEFS et al (US 2008/0235613).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed causes the cursor displayed to the user on the display screen to move (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9). However, HOPKINS fails to disclose move from one page of a menu displayed to the user on the display screen to a next page of the menu. In a similar field of endeavor, RICKLEFS discloses move from one page of a menu displayed to the user on the display screen to a next page of the menu (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of RICKLEFS, since such a modification would allow further options to be displayed in the event that selections are greater then can be displayed on a screen.
Regarding claim 33, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. HOPKINS further discloses further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed causes the cursor displayed to the user on the display screen to move (col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 9). However, HOPKINS fails to disclose move from one page of a menu displayed to the user on the display screen to a next page of the menu. In a similar field of endeavor, RICKLEFS discloses move from one page of a menu displayed to the user on the display screen to a next page of the menu (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of RICKLEFS, since such a modification would allow further options to be displayed in the event that selections are greater then can be displayed on a screen.
Claim(s) 17, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOPKINS et al (US 5,097,891) in view of TANAKA et al (US 2012/0162069).
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed and a cursor overlays one user- selectable field within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen causes the cursor to simultaneously overlay multiple user-selectable fields of the menu displayed to the user on the display screen. In a similar field of endeavor, TANAKA discloses further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed and a cursor overlays one user- selectable field within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen causes the cursor to simultaneously overlay multiple user-selectable fields of the menu displayed to the user on the display screen (Figure 5A-5C; paragraph 46-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of TANAKA, since TANAKA states that such a modification would improve selection of multiple items within a close area. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by TANAKA.
Regarding claim 34, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, HOPKINS does not expressly disclose further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed and a cursor overlays one user- selectable field within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen causes the cursor to simultaneously overlay multiple user-selectable fields of the menu displayed to the user on the display screen. In a similar field of endeavor, TANAKA discloses further comprising a pressable button, wherein the rotation of the multi-function rotary dial while the button is pressed and a cursor overlays one user- selectable field within a menu displayed to the user on the display screen causes the cursor to simultaneously overlay multiple user-selectable fields of the menu displayed to the user on the display screen (Figure 5A-5C; paragraph 46-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOPKINS to include the teachings of TANAKA, since TANAKA states that such a modification would improve selection of multiple items within a close area. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional scroll options based on those disclosed by TANAKA.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11,28 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624