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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura Pub. No. US 2025/0253920 A1 [Nakamura] in view of Kwak et al. Pub. No. US 2014/0101578 A1 [Kwak].
1. Nakamura discloses a method [Fig. 1], comprising:
defining a correspondence between a touch gesture and a confirmation signal in a dual-screen device [¶¶ 89-92 & 107, for instance, where confirmation is provided by sensor unit];
detecting the touch gesture during a calibration process for a first display of the dual-screen device [¶ 8 when position is changed in common units and maintained in part in invention].
Nakamura is silent on determining whether at least one operation gesture on the dual-screen device is identical to the defined touch gesture, and outputting the confirmation signal when the operation gesture is identical to the defined touch gesture; and continuing to calibrate a second display of the dual-screen device in response to the confirmation signal.
However Kwak teaches determining whether at least one operation gesture on the dual-screen device is identical to the defined touch gesture [Fig. 14 by means of S1420], and outputting the confirmation signal when the operation gesture is identical to the defined touch gesture [by means of S1440 and ¶ 117 confirmed gesture signal]; and
continuing to calibrate a second display of the dual-screen device in response to the confirmation signal [¶ 139 some control operation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura with Kwak, since such a modification optimizes multi-screen device which is a long-felt need.
As for the preamble limitations “for optimizing a manufacturing setting process of a dual-screen device,” “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the preamble phrase "which provides improved playing and handling characteristics" in a claim drawn to a head for a lacrosse stick was not a claim limitation). MPEP 2111.02.
2. Nakamura in view of Kwak teaches wherein the step of determining whether at least one operation gesture on the dual-screen device is identical to the defined touch gesture comprises: analyzing a gesture data received from the dual-screen device to determine whether the gesture data matches the touch gesture [Kwak see Fig. 5 generally]; and outputting the confirmation signal when the gesture data matches the touch gesture [¶ 116 confirming gesture].
4. Nakamura in view of Kwak teaches wherein the touch gesture is a five-finger gesture [Kwak see Fig. 5 generally, for instance].
5. Nakamura in view of Kwak is silent on wherein the dual-screen device is a point of sale (POS) terminal. However the examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously old and well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a POS for a touch screen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nakamura in view of Kwak, since such a modification improves the functionality of the device.
7. Nakamura in view of Kwak is silent on wherein a screen size and a resolution of the first display and the second display are different from each other. However the examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously old and well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have dual touch screens of different sizes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nakamura in view of Kwak, since such a modification improves the usability of the device.
8. Nakamura in view of Kwak teaches wherein a screen size and a resolution of the first display and the second display are the same [Kwak see Fig. 2 generally].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 and 9-10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
3. The notifying limitations especially when considering the limitations of claim 2 in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
6. The POS limitations especially when considering the limitations of claim 5 in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
9. The calibrated limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
10. The calibrated limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO POLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PT.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)272-7603. 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.
/Gustavo Polo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights