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 . All the claims have been examined on the basis of the merit of the claims.
Priority
The present application is a 371 of PCT/JP2024017689 filed 05/13/2024 which claims foreign priority benefits from JP2023084861 filed in Japan on 05/23/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025 is considered and attached.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISPLAY TERMINAL, OPERATION METHOD, AND PRGORAM.
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 16 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 “a program…display” is a software per se. Referring MPEP 2106.03 (I) “on-limiting example(s) of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by (US-20150193040-A1, hereinafter as, Hwang).
In regard to claims 1 and 15-16, Hwang discloses a terminal, an operation method and a program that causes a computer to execute an operation comprising: a display; and a controller configured to determine a user designation for an object displayed on the display based on information on a first operator and information on a second operator, the first operator and the second operator hovering relative to the display (referring to fig.1, fig.14, para 0055, objects 1430 and 1440 produce two hover points at (xhp3, yhp3) and (xhp4, yhp4) and also produce two separate intersection points at (xip2, yip2) and (xip3, yip3), the two intersection points may be used, for example, to manipulate objects displayed on interface 1400).
In regard to claim 2, Hwang discloses the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the information on the first operator is based on a capacitance associated with the first operator relative to the display, and the information on the second operator is based on a capacitance associated with the second operator relative to the display (para 0035, detects capacitance change in the hover space. The capacitance change caused by or associated with input objects).
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) 3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Godavari (US-20110102464-A1, hereinafter as Godavari).
In regard to claim 3, Hwang discloses the terminal according to claim 1,
Hwang does not disclose “wherein the controller is configured to determine a user designation for an object displayed on the display in response to determining, based on the information on the first operator and the information on the second operator, that a distance between the first operator and the second operator is less than a distance threshold.”
Godavari discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a user designation for an object displayed on the display in response to determining, based on the information on the first operator and the information on the second operator, that a distance between the first operator and the second operator is less than a distance threshold (figs. 1-2, para 0036, if the distance of the instantaneous jump ( i.e. P1 to P3 using pinch gestures of two fingers 102 & 104 as shown as the first and second operators) is less than the threshold distance (i.e., determination block 203="No"), the multi-touch gesture functionality is not used and normal graphical user interface processing of the touch event may be implemented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the invention, to use Godavari’s teaching to implement a pinch gesture using two fingers, multi-input, to implement a zoom function to manipulate the graphical user interface in Hwang’s interface. The combination of Hwang and Godavari further teaches to use proximity sensor which do not have to touched on the surface and the zoom functions are implemented in a hover space or at proximity, disclosed at para 0078, Godavari.
In regard to claim 13, Hwang as modified Godavari discloses the terminal according to claim l wherein the first operator and the second operator are two adjacent fingers (102, 104, fig.1).
In regard to claim 14, Hwang as modified Godavari discloses the terminal according to claim 13,wherein the first operator is an index finger, and the second operator is a middle finger (fingers 102 and 104 can be any combination including index and middle fingers for which the invention would work equally).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-12 are 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.
The combination of Hwang and Godavari does not disclose the subject of the following dependent claims.
Claim 4 (Currently amended) The terminal according to claim 3, wherein a first segment is a segment connecting a position of the first operator and a position of the second operator on the display, a second segment is a segment passing through a point on the first segment and being orthogonal to the first segment on the display, and the controller is configured to, in response to determining that a change in capacitance on or near the second segment on the display exceeds a change threshold, determine that a distance between the first operator and the second operator is less than the distance threshold.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4.
[Claim 6] (Currently amended) The terminal according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to, in response to the first operator remaining at a position relative to the display for a predetermined amount of time after determination of presence of the first operator, determine presence or absence of the second operator.
Claim 7 depend on claim 6.
[Claim 8] (Currently amended) The terminal according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to, in response to determining presence of the second operator, cause the display to display an indicator indicating a distance between the first operator and the second operator.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8.
[Claim 10] (Currently amended) The terminal according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to, in response to the first operator remaining at a position relative to the display for a predetermined amount of time after determination of presence of the first operator, cause an object toward which the first operator is directed among multiple objects displayed on the display to be displayed in a manner different from other objects.
[Claim 11] (Currently amended) The terminal according to claim l, wherein the controller is configured to, when a tilt angle of the display relative to a horizontal direction is equal to or less than a predetermined angle, determine not to accept a non-contact operation and cause the display to display a notification indicating that the non-contact operation is not accepted.
[Claim 12] (Currently amended) The terminal according to claim l, wherein the controller is configured to, when a tilt angle of the display relative to a horizontal direction is greater than a predetermined angle, determine to accept a non-contact operation and cause the display to display a notification indicating that the non-contact operation is accepted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPROSE SUBEDI whose telephone number is (571)270-7977. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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.
/DEEPROSE SUBEDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
