DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. The amendment submitted on June 16, 2026, has been received and recorded. In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 16, 2026, applicant amended claims 1-19 of which claims 1, and 12 are independent claims. Claim 20 is maintained. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as new claim after the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments in “REMARKS” submitted on June 16, 2026, regarding independent claims 1, and 12 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al.(US 2015/0161836 A1)(herein after PARK) in view of Pedersen(US 2016/0140379 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PARK teaches an electronic device(external device 170, fig.1B, Para-123; mobile terminal 1100, fig.8, Para-220), comprising:
a display comprising a display panel(display unit 1151, fig.8, Para-239) and configured to include a display area(display area, figs.5B, 9A, 10-11, 16A-16C) and an edge of the display area(figs.16A-16C)(examiner interprets an area close to frame of the display device as edge area of the display);
a touch sensor(sensing unit 1140, fig.8; also Para-244) configured to detect a movement(fig.7E) of a target object(user or user finger) in at least a portion of the edge(window 500 is a touch screen and finger touch start at left edge and ends at bottom edge of the touch window 500; also fig.20C); and
at least one processor(controller 1180, fig.8), comprising processing circuitry(fig.1A, Para 85-87), electrically connected to the display(1151) and the touch sensor(1140) and configured to perform an interaction with a user(user touch or gesture),
wherein the at least one processor(controller 1180) is individually or collectively configured to:
control the display(1151) to display a user interface(figs.16A, 16C) for requesting user authentication(authentication request) in the display area(fig.3 and related text);
set, as an interaction area for the user authentication, a user designated specific section of the edge of the display area near a corner of the display area(figs.16A, 16C and related text)(as shown in figs.16A&16C, the authentication area is dynamically changed from left edge to bottom edge of the display area);
obtain a pattern for the user authentication corresponding to the movement of the target object(user finger) detected within the detected interaction area by the touch sensor(Para 384-385); and
perform the user authentication in the displayed user interface based on whether the obtained pattern matches a preset target pattern(figs.2-4 and related text; Para-190, 349, 359, 385),
wherein the pattern is to be obtained by one or both of a vertical movement or a horizontal movement(gravity direction) of the target object(user finger) detected from at least the portion of the edge(figs.7D-E, 16A, 16C),
wherein the vertical movement is to be detected by a movement of the target object along a vertical axis of the interaction area(figs.7F-G, 14A-14B, 19, 20C, 24A), and
wherein the horizontal movement is to be detected by a movement of the target object along a horizontal axis of the interaction area(figs.7E, 14A-14B, 19, 20C, 24A).
If it is considered that PARK fails to teach all the aforementioned limitations, especially the limitations, ”wherein the pattern is to be obtained by one or both of vertical movement or a horizontal movement of the target object detected from at least the portion of the edge, wherein the vertical movement is to be detected by a movement of the target object along a vertical axis of interaction area and wherein the horizontal movement is to be detected by a movement of the target object along a horizontal axis of interaction area” in his/her disclosure, then it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to utilize the teaching of Pederson associated with figs.7a-7b, 8b, 9a-9b, 10a-10b &11a-11b and related texts, in order to teach the claim limitations. Pedersen teaches a system for improvement in relating to user authentication,
wherein the pattern is to be obtained by one or both of a vertical movement or a horizontal movement of the target object detected from at least the portion of the edge(figs.7a-11c),
wherein the vertical movement is to be detected by a movement of the target object along a vertical axis of the interaction area(figs.7a-7b, 8b, 9a-9b, 10a-10b &11a-11b and related texts), and
wherein the horizontal movement is to be detected by a movement of the target object along a horizontal axis of interaction area(figs.7c, 8a, 9c, &11c and related texts). Pedersen also discloses authentication procedure in his/her discloser in Para-16, 32 and claim 28.
Such a combination is desirable as it provides a system of authentication that is very simple and easy to carry out which at the same time represents an ergonomic and strain-free mode of operation.
Regarding claim 2, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is individually or collectively configured to:
when the display area is rectangular(figs.16A-16C, PARK; Para-131, Pederson), set the interaction area as a lower right corner among four corners included in the edge(fig.7c, Pedersen).
Regarding claim 3, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is individually or collectively configured to:
detect one or both of a first movement(m1) of the target object in an upper direction by a preset first length along the vertical axis of the interaction area(fig.8b, Pedersen) or a second movement(m₂) of the target object in a lower direction by a preset second length along the vertical axis of the interaction area as the vertical movement by the touch sensor(figs.7a-7b, Pedersen); and
detect one or both of a third movement(m₃) of the target object in a left direction by a preset third length along the horizontal axis of the interaction area(Para-131, Pedersen) or a fourth movement(m4) of the target object in a right direction by a preset fourth length along the horizontal axis of the interaction area as the horizontal movement by the touch sensor(figs.8a, 8c, Pedersen).
Regarding claim 4, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is individually or collectively configured to obtain the pattern by one or both of a combination of an occurrence order or occurrence count of at least one of: the first movement(m₁), the second movement(m₂), the third movement(m₃), or the fourth movement(m4)(Para 119-123, Pedersen).
Regarding claim 5, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is individually or collectively configured to, when the display area is rectangular(fig.16A, PARK; Para-131, Pederson), set a first interaction area in a first corner and a second interaction area in a second corner, the first corner and second corner being at least two corners among four corners included in the interaction area(figs.16A-16C, PARK).
Regarding claim 6, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor(controller 1180, fig.8, PARK) is individually or collectively configured to:
detect a first movement(m31) of the target object in an upper direction along a first vertical axis of the first interaction area(fig.8b, Pedersen);
detect a second movement(m32) of the target object in a lower direction along the first vertical axis(fig.7b, Pedersen);
detect a third movement(m33) of the target object in a left direction along a first horizontal axis of the first interaction area(fig.6b, Pedersen);
detect a fourth movement(m34) of the target object in a right direction along the first horizontal axis(fig.8a, Pedersen);
detect a fifth movement(m₂₁) of the target object in an upper direction along a second vertical axis of the second interaction area(fig.8b, Pedersen);
detect a sixth movement(m₂₂) of the target object in a lower direction along the second vertical axis(fig.11b, Pedersen);
detect a seventh movement(m₂₃) of the target object in a left direction along a second horizontal axis of the second interaction area(fig.6b, Pedersen); and
detect an eighth movement(m24) of the target object in a right direction along the second horizontal axis(fig.8a, Pedersen).
Regarding claim 7, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is individually or collectively configured to obtain the pattern by one or both of a combination of an occurrence order or occurrence count of at least one of:
the first movement(m31), the second movement(m32), the third movement(m33), the fourth movement(m34), the fifth movement (m₂₁), the sixth movement(m₂₂), the seventh movement(m23), or the eighth movement(m24)(Para 119-123, Pedersen).
Regarding claim 8, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor(controller 1180, fig.8, PARK) is individually or collectively configured to:
control the display to display an on-screen keyboard in the display area(Para 295-296, PARK);
obtain input information transferred from the display as the user manipulates the on-screen keyboard(Para-297, PARK KIM); and
perform the user authentication based on the obtained pattern and input information(fig.3-5, and Para-385, PARK).
Regarding claim 10, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the touch sensor includes an infrared sensor(illumination sensor 142, fig.8, Para-45, PARK).
Regarding claim 11, PARK as modified by Pedersen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the interaction area corresponds to a specific area of an input area that overlaps the display area(figs.16A-16C, PARK).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since both claims 1 and 12 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2, since both claims 2 and 13 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 3, since both claims 3 and 14 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 4, since both claims 4 and 15 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 5, since both claims 5 and 16 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, since both claims 6 and 17 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 7, since both claims 7 and 18 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 8, since both claims 8 and 19 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
8. Claims 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over PARK et al.(US 2015/0161836 A1) in view of Pedersen(US 2016/01 40379 A1) and further in view of BERGQVIST et al.(US 2022/0172505 A1) (herein after BERGQVIST).
Regarding claim 9, PARK as modified by Pedersen is not found to teach expressly the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is individually or collectively configured to:
control the touch sensor to detect a width of the target object; and consider the detected width of the target object for the user authentication.
However, BERGQVIST teaches a biometric authentication device, wherein the at least one processor(host controller 1037, fig.5, Para-47) is individually or collectively configured to:
control the touch sensor to detect a width of the target object(fig.6, Para-17, 50-52, 54-55); and
consider the detected width(step S2, fig.8, Para-58) of the target object for the user authentication(S3, fig8, Para-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the application, to have modified PARK further with the teaching of BERGQVIST to include the feature in order to improve accuracy of determined characteristic geometric body part property and also to reduce computational complexity.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 9, since both claims 9 and 20 recite identical claim limitations except the claim representation is in different formats.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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.
Examiner Note
10. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights