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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8 and 10-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0258449 to Nielsen et al. “Nielsen” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0269768 to Shin et al. “Shin”.
As for Claims 1, 14, 15 and 24-25, Nielsen discloses an ultrasound imaging system including a user interface comprising a touch panel with different input clusters (Abstract; Figs. 2 and 5 and corresponding descriptions). Nielsen explains the system includes a touchscreen controller configured to recognize input from the touch panel (124 in Fig. 5). Nielsen discloses wherein the input clusters may include tactile indications of the location of the control such as, for example, recesses, ridges, different surface smoothness/roughness or the like (Paragraph [0059]). Such disclosures are considered to read on the claimed limitations of an electronic device comprising a base material (e.g. touch panel), a processor and memory configured to execute detection processing of detecting an operation on the base material in its broadest reasonable interpretation. In one embodiment, Neilsen explains controls may include circular shaped controls with non-active areas and/or concentric controls including one control surrounding another control (Paragraph [0048]). Examiner notes Nielsen’s touch panel would include regions where touch input is not received in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Neilsen does not expressly disclose a recess or ridge (e.g. protrusion) on the circular controls described above.
Shin teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to user input devices (Abstract) where a base material is used to recognize touch input of a plurality of regions (Figs. 1, 5, and 14 and corresponding descriptions). In one embodiment, Shin explains where the touch portion 110 may have a protrusion in the middle so the user can intuitively recognize a position of the center by feeling the protrusion (Paragraph [0098]). In another embodiment the circular touch portion (e.g. annular) includes a protruded surface where the user can provide input on one region while not providing input on another (Fig. 14 and corresponding descriptions).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the circular touch input controls described by Neilsen with Shin’s touch input device including a protrusion in order to improve user interaction by allowing the user to intuitively recognize touch input locations. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding the limitation of acquiring “position information” related to the operation on the base material (e.g. touch input), Examiner notes Nielsen’s touch panel processing would appear to determine position information of the touch input in order to execute the appropriate controlling a behavior of the ultrasound system (e.g. adjusting parameters; Paragraphs [0044], [0046] and [0060]) in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Likewise, Shin depicts a press input on one side of the circular input (Fig. 5 and corresponding descriptions) and processing means to determine touch coordinates (Paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0150]-[0153]) which is considered to read on the claimed limitations of acquiring position information related to the operation on the base material and executing control processing controlling the behavior of the electronic device based on the position information in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 2, Nielsen discloses wherein the input clusters may include tactile indications of the location of the control such as, for example, recesses, ridges, different surface smoothness/roughness or the like (Paragraph [0059]) on a surface of a base material. In addition, Shin provides another embodiment of a depressed portion of an input control. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have combined different types of concave/convex surfaces in order for the user to recognize where input is provided.
With respect to Claim 3, Shin provides different regions for touch input (Figs. 1, 10, 14 and corresponding descriptions).
As for Claim 4, the modified device as described above controls the behavior of the electronic ultrasound system based on the position information related to a function (e.g. touch input) performed on the base material. In addition, both Nielsen and Shin disclose different types of “operations” performed on the base material such as, for example, a touch or a touch and swipe (Nielsen; Paragraphs [0045]-[0046] and Shin: Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claims 7-8, the modified system and method as described above determines one or more characteristics of the touch input as described above. Shin’s touch input detects physical force from a user (Paragraphs [0072] and [0076]).
As for Claim 10, Nielsen discloses wherein the device can provide haptic or tactile feedback to the user when the user’s hand or finger is placed in the vicinity (e.g. proximity) to a particular control (Paragraph [0059]).
As for Claims 11-13, Examiner notes the modified touch input allows multiple inputs at various locations on the device including the protruded or depressed portion and a third region in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 16, Nielsen’s ultrasound system allows the user to adjust the gain, zoom and rotation of an ultrasound image (Paragraphs [0060] and [0068]). Fig. 1 depicts a transducer array which is configured to transmit and receive ultrasound to generate the image.
As for Claims 17 and 22-23, Nielsen depicts wherein the touch panel interface can be replaceably attached to the electronic device via interfaces 130 and 138 in Fig. 1 (Paragraph [0051]).
With respect to Claims 18-20, all claimed limitations have been addressed above with respect to controlling the behavior of the device based on position information of the touch on the controls of the touch input. Nielsen discloses wherein a button can provide toggling (e.g. switching) of the devices behavior (Paragraph [0073]).
As for Claim 21, as explained above, Neilsen and Shin provides a partitioned touch panel in order to determine whether the touch is on a first portion or second portion of the input device. Such disclosure are considered to read on a first and second base material in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Alternatively, the various recesses, ridges, different surface smoothness/roughness or the like may be considered a second portion of the base material in tis broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neilen and Shin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0208724 to Emigh et al. “Emigh”.
As for Claim 6, Neilsen and Shin disclose an electronic device for touch input as described above. While the modified device determines coordinate information to determine the location of the touch input and if it overlaps regions, the modified device does not determine whether or not the operation “is to be received” as claimed.
Emigh teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect touch based control devices (Paragraph [0002]) where a touch panel is provided with a sensor layer configured to accept touch inputs from the user so control model can detect and interpret the touch inputs (Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]). Emigh discloses wherein identified locations include coordinates of the touch contact (Paragraph [0070]) in order to control the behavior of the electronic device (Paragraphs [0111]-[0118]). Emigh provides a logically partitioned touch panel in order to determine whether or not the touch overlaps the region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, Emigh teaches where the control module can differentiate between deliberate and incidental touches (Paragraph [0051]). Such disclosures are considered to read on the claimed limitations of whether the operation is to be received in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the touch input device described by Neilsen and Shin to include processing means to differentiate between deliberate and incidental touches as described by Emigh in order to enhance user interaction with the device by differentiating deliberate and inadvertent inputs.
Alternatively regarding Claims 7-8, the modified system and method as described above determines one or more characteristics of the touch input including for example, a direction of the movement, a length of movement, a linear or two-dimensional path of movement, a duration of touch input, a time interval between discrete touches of touch input, a velocity or acceleration of movement of touch input and a force exerted on the surface to identify locations where the touch input occurs (Paragraph [0048]) and performs an operation accordingly.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen and Shin or alternatively Neilsen, Shin and Emigh as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0083139 to Heyd et al. “Heyd”.
With respect to Claims 9, Nielsen and Shin or Neilson, Shin and Emigh disclose an electronic device comprising a touch input panel configured to detect user input and perform an operation as described above. Nielsen discloses wherein the device can provide haptic or tactile feedback to the user when the user’s hand or finger is placed in the vicinity (e.g. proximity) to a particular control (Paragraph [0059]) but fails to specify the haptic feedback is vibration.
Heyd teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to touchscreen panels (Abstract) where interaction with one or more of the GUIs and/or GUI icons related to controls provides the user with a haptic response including vibration (Paragraph [0087]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have provided the user with a vibrational haptic feedback as described by Heyd in order to provide an efficient indication of successful interaction with the touchscreen (Heyd-Paragraph [0087]). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights