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, 18 and 33 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) 1-7, 13-14, 18-21 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (2012/0306768) in view of Wolters (2018/0335856). In regards to claims 1 and 18, Bailey teaches a touch screen motion compensation system See; p[0010] and p[0014]): an accelerometer configured to generate accelerometer data indicating a motion See; p[0014]); a touch screen display configured to generate touch location data in response to tactile input from a user (See; p[0010]); and a computing system configured to generate compensated touch location data by compensating the touch location data based on the accelerometer data (See; p[0010] where touch coordinates are offset to compensate for device movement). Bailey fails to explicitly teach a touch screen motion compensation system for a vehicle. However, Bailey does teach touch screen motion compensation for a mobile device, where the motion may be imparted on the mobile device by a vehicle, when it is in a vehicle (See; p[0002]-p[0003], p[0014], p[0033]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey’s touch screen movement compensation system to work for a vehicle’s integrated touch screen display as a mere design choice, as any touch screen that has motion enacted on it would function under Bailey’s system. Bailey further fails to explicitly teach a touch screen display on the vehicle and that moves with the motion of the vehicle. The Examiner contends that whether the touch screen is mounted to the vehicle on a stand or integrated into the vehicle would not change the motion compensation process of Bailey, as regardless where the touch screen is located within the vehicle, the vehicle’s motion will be detected by Bailey. However, for the sake of compact prosecution a new reference in Wolters is introduced. Wolters teaches a touch screen motion compensation system for a vehicle, a touch screen display on the vehicle and that moves with the motion of the vehicle (See; Figs. 5L-5Q and p[0190]- p[0197] where a touch sensitive display 500 is installed in a vehicle and compensates for the change of movement of the touch screen imparted thereon by the vehicle). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mount Bailey’s touch display to a vehicle for motion compensation so as to make the device operable in all different applications, including the large market including vehicle display systems. In regards to claim 2, Bailey teaches wherein the touch location data comprises a plurality of screen coordinates, and the compensated touch location data comprise a plurality of adjusted screen coordinates (See; p[0010] for offsetting received touch coordinates to compensate for device shifting).
In regards to claim 3, Bailey teaches wherein the touch location data comprises a plurality of screen object interactions, and the compensated touch location data comprises a plurality of corrected screen object interactions (See; p[0010] where the system may increase font size or the size of other user interface elements in response to detecting external motion).
In regards to claim 4, Bailey teaches wherein the plurality of screen object interactions comprise a plurality of button pushes, and the plurality of corrected screen object interactions comprise a plurality of corrected button pushes (See; p[0010]).
In regards to claims 5 and 19, Bailey teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to preprocess the accelerometer data using an adaptive filter (See; p[0010] – p[0011]).
In regards to claims 6 and 20, Bailey teaches wherein the touch screen display comprises a capacitive touch screen sensor (See; p[0001] for capacitive touch screens), wherein the computing system is further configured to generate the compensated touch location data based on observations of a sense current of the capacitive touch screen sensor (See; p[0010] where the touch coordinate input is corrected, where it is obvious that capacitive touch panels use sensed currents to determine coordinates touched).
In regards to claims 7 and 21, Bailey fails to explicitly teach wherein the computing system is further configured to control at least one operation of the vehicle based on the compensated touch location data. However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that modern multi media interfaces in vehicles use touch screens to control vehicle functions.
In regards to claim 13, Bailey teaches wherein the accelerometer data is time stamped by a first plurality of time stamps, and the touch location data is time stamped by a second plurality of time stamps (See; p[0004] where accelerometer data is integrated in real-time to track shifts in the device position to apply the offsets in real time to the touch coordinates. It would be obvious that time stamps could be used to keep track of the real time updates to keep in sync).
In regards to claim 14, Bailey teaches wherein the computing system is configured to align the accelerometer data and the touch location data in time based on the first plurality of time stamps and the second plurality of time stamps (See; p[0004] where accelerometer data is integrated in real-time to track shifts in the device position to apply the offsets in real time to the touch coordinates. It would be obvious that time stamps could be used to keep track of the real time updates to keep in sync).
In regards to claim 33, Bailey teaches See; p[0014]); a touch screen display configured to generate touch location data in response to tactile input from a user (See; p[0010] and p[0014]); and a computing system configured to generate compensated touch location data by compensating the touch location data based on the accelerometer data (See; p[0010] where touch coordinates are offset to compensate for device movement). Bailey fails to explicitly teach a vehicle comprising a vehicle body.
However, Bailey does teach touch screen motion compensation for a mobile device, where the motion may be imparted on the mobile device by a vehicle, when it is in a vehicle (See; p[0002]-p[0003], p[0014], p[0033] where its states that external sensors can be mounted on a vehicle (vehicle body)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey’s touch screen movement compensation system to work for a vehicle’s integrated touch screen display as a mere design choice, as any touch screen that has motion enacted on it would function under Bailey’s system. Bailey further fails to explicitly teach a touch screen display on the vehicle and that moves with the motion of the vehicle. The Examiner contends that whether the touch screen is mounted to the vehicle on a stand or integrated into the vehicle would not change the motion compensation process of Bailey, as regardless where the touch screen is located within the vehicle, the vehicle’s motion will be detected by Bailey. However, for the sake of compact prosecution a new reference in Wolters is introduced. Wolters teaches a touch screen motion compensation system for a vehicle, a touch screen display on the vehicle and that moves with the motion of the vehicle (See; Figs. 5L-5Q and p[0190]- p[0197] where a touch sensitive display 500 is installed in a vehicle and compensates for the change of movement of the touch screen imparted thereon by the vehicle). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mount Bailey’s touch display to a vehicle for motion compensation so as to make the device operable in all different applications, including the large market including vehicle display systems.
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (2012/0306768) in view of Wolters (2018/0335856) and further in view of Meyer et al (2023/0086516) (herein “Meyer”). In regards to claim 8 and 22, Bailey fails to explicitly teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to receive an indication of a current user of the touch screen display from a plurality of possible users, the computing system further configured to generate the compensated touch location data based on the indication of the current user. However, Meyer teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to receive an indication of a current user of the touch screen display from a plurality of possible users, the computing system further configured to generate the compensated touch location data based on the indication of the current user (See; p[0120], p[0126] - p[0131] for a touch system with input location correction based on device motion that uses personal information data of the current user). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey to use personal user information as in Meyer to customize the touch display for each individual user.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (2012/0306768) in view of Wolters (2018/0335856) and further in view of Le et al (PredicTouch A System to Reduce Touchscreen Latency using Neural Networks and Inertial Measurement Units”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERACTIVE SURFACES AND SPACES, 17 October 2017 (2017-10-17), pages 230-239) (herein “Le”).
In regards to claim 9, Bailey fails to explicitly teach wherein the computing system comprises a neural network. However, Le teaches wherein the computing system comprises a neural network (See; Abstract, Introduction where artificial neural networks can be used to predict the fingers future position on the touch screen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey to use neural networks so as to further improve coordinate offset to be as accurate as possible.
In regards to claim 10, Bailey fails to explicitly teach wherein the neural network is configured to be trained by a foreground training algorithm. However, Le teaches wherein the neural network is configured to be trained by a foreground training algorithm (See; Abstract, Training Artificial Neural Networks pg 232-234). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey to use neural networks so as to further improve coordinate offset to be as accurate as possible.
In regards to claim 11, Bailey fails to explicitly teach wherein the neural network is configured to be trained by a background training algorithm running during a normal operation of the vehicle. However, Le teaches wherein the neural network is configured to be trained by a background training algorithm running during a normal operation of the vehicle (See; Abstract, Training Artificial Neural Networks pg 232-234). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey to use neural networks so as to further improve coordinate offset to be as accurate as possible.
In regards to claim 12, Bailey fails to explicitly teach wherein the neural network is configured to adapt to a change in a behavior of the user over time. However, Le teaches wherein the neural network is configured to adapt to a change in a behavior of the user over time (See; Abstract, introduction, Training Artificial Neural Networks pg 232-234). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bailey to use neural networks so as to further improve coordinate offset to be as accurate as possible.
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