DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (2016/0154474) (herein “PARK”) in view of SMOLYANSKAYA et al (2022/0206679) (herein “SMOLYANSKAYA”) In regards to claims 1 and 11, PARK teaches an electronic device, comprising: a display; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (See; Fig. 1 and p[0153]), cause the electronic device to: detect a hovering input of a stylus pen (See; p[0082] and p[0099] where contact or access (hovering) of the touch pen is sensed) related to a first object displayed on the display (See; Fig. 4A for an example of hovering over the input field 403), obtain information associated with a tilt direction of the stylus pen while the hovering input is detected (See; Figs. 2A, 2B, 14 and p[0054]-p[0055] for detecting the contact point of the pen and the tilt of the pen by calculating an angle (p) of the tilt), based at least on a position of the hovering input and the information associated with the tilt direction of the stylus pen, display a new second object at a display area of the display (See; Fig. 4B for displaying a handwriting input layer 403a), wherein a location of the display area at which the object is displayed is determined based on a position of the hovering input and the tilt direction of the stylus pen (See; Figs. 2A, 2B and p[0054]-p[0060] where a display direction of graphical objects are changed based on the contact and tilt direction of the touch pen so as to, for example, accommodate for left and right handed users). PARK fails to explicitly teach wherein a location of the display area at which the second object is displayed relative to the displayed first object is determined based on a position of the hovering input and the tilt direction of the stylus pen. However, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches detecting a hovering input of a stylus pen related to a first object displayed on the display (See; Fig. 1A for a UI control 122) and wherein a location of the display area at which a second object is displayed relative to the displayed first object is determined based on a position of the hovering input and the tilt direction of the stylus pen (See; Fig. 1A, 1B, 1D, abstract, p[0027], p[0029]- p[0030] and p[0033]-p[0036] where after the user selects UI control 122, additional UI controls 128 are displayed in a location opposite of the writing instrument’s tilt angle). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify PARK’s tilt sensing stylus to also include SMOLYANSKAYA’s individual object control via tilt to add additional functionality and control over the GUI, increasing user satisfaction in the device. In regards to claims 2 and 12, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the location of the display area at which the second object is displayed corresponds to a display area opposite to the tilt direction of the stylus pen (See; Fig. 1A, 1B, 1D, abstract, p[0027],p[0029]- p[0030] and p[0033]-p[0036] where after the user selects UI control 122, additional UI controls 128 are displayed in a location opposite of the writing instrument’s tilt angle).
In regards to claims 3 and 13, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the second object, displayed based at least on the hovering input and the information associated with the tilt direction of the stylus pen, includes a plurality of UI items for executing functions (See; Fig. 1A, 1B, 1D, abstract, p[0027],p[0029]- p[0030] and p[0033]-p[0036] where after the user selects UI control 122, additional UI controls 128 are displayed in a location opposite of the writing instrument’s tilt angle).
In regards to claims 4 and 14, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the second object includes a plurality of options, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, obtain, via the stylus pen, a first input with respect to a first option among the plurality of options, based on the obtaining of the first input, display, instead of the second object, another object including a plurality of items related to the selected first option (See; Fig. 1A and p[0029]).
In regards to claims 5 and 15, PARK teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, obtain, via the stylus pen, a second input with respect to a second option among the plurality of options, based on the obtaining of the second input, display a pop-up window including detailed information of the selected second option (See; Fig. 12A for a status bar having a plurality of UI item options, where it is inherent that each of these items would have popups like the pen icon, where each popup inherently shows detailed information about the option such as the thickness diagrams showing the different thicknesses).
In regards to claims 6 and 16, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, based on a second input of the stylus pen being detected for changing the second object in a state that the object is displayed, increase an amount of content included in the second object (See; Fig. 1A, 1B, 1D, abstract, p[0027],p[0029]- p[0030] and p[0033]-p[0036] where after the user selects UI control 122, additional UI controls 128 are displayed in a location opposite of the writing instrument’s tilt angle including changing the types of pen, the thickness of ink input, etc.).
In regards to claims 7 and 17, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, increase a size of the second object (See; p[0030]-p[0032] where the line thickness increases, increasing the size of objects, which could be considered increasing a size of an object. Increasing the size of objects is well known in the area of graphical user interfaces).
In regards to claims 8 and 18, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, increase a number of types of the content included in the second object (See; Fig. 1A, 1B, 1D, abstract, p[0027],p[0029]- p[0030] and p[0033]-p[0036] where after the user selects UI control 122, additional UI controls 128 are displayed in a location opposite of the writing instrument’s tilt angle).
In regards to claims 9 and 19, PARK teaches further comprising: communication circuitry; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, and receive, through the communication circuitry, the information associated with the tilt direction from the stylus pen (See; Fig. 1, p[0045], p[0048] and p[0068] for a communicator 107 receiving information about the tilt of the touch pen from a signal sent from the touch pen).
In regards to claim 10, PARK teaches further comprising: sensing circuitry; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, obtain, through the sensing circuitry, the information associated with the tilt direction of the stylus pen (See; p[0047] where, alternatively, the sensor 105 (sensing array) can output information to determine the tilt of the touch pen).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (2016/0154474) (herein “PARK”) in view of SMOLYANSKAYA et al (2022/0206679) (herein “SMOLYANSKAYA”) and further in view of Hicks (2014/0253521). In regards to claim 21, SMOLYANSKAYA teaches wherein the second object includes a plurality of selectable options and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: change a selected option from among the plurality of selectable options See; Fig. 3 where after the user selects UI control 122, additional UI controls 128 are displayed in a location opposite of the writing instrument’s tilt angle and the user can select one of the selectable objects by moving the stylus along any of the paths 340/350 or 360). SMOLYANSKAYA fails to explicitly teach change a selected option from among the plurality of selectable options based on a change in the tilt direction and/or tilt angle of the stylus pen after the second object is displayed.
However, Hicks teaches wherein the second object includes a plurality of selectable options and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: change a selected option from among the plurality of selectable options based on a change in the tilt direction and/or tilt angle of the stylus pen after the second object is displayed (See; Figs. 4A-7b, Abstract, p[0017] where a user can change through selectable options (scroll) based on a change in the tilt of a stylus pen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify SMOLYANSKAYA to use the detected angle of the stylus to scroll through the menu items so as to make it easier for the user to manipulate the user interface.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights