`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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “a roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75” in claims 1, 6 and 9 is not of a particularly defined unit or scale so it has no reference point, and further is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10-13 do not further clarify the roughness is less than 0.75. In applicant’s specification [0095] defies: “Correspondingly, “roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75” may be understood as that the edge of the touch track is neat, and without many sawtooth lines. In other words, the edge of the touch track is smooth. For example, still refer to FIG. 3B. If the sliding track corresponding to the first sliding operation is a straight line, the touch track that corresponds to the first sliding operation and that is displayed by the electronic device is also a straight line, and an edge of the straight line is smooth and neat, and has no sawtooth line”. 0.75 has no associated unit of measurement. For the purpose of prior art consideration below, Examiner interprets “the roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75” to mean that the jaggedness of the touch track is less than the jaggedness of the sliding operation, meaning the touch track has been corrected to have less jaggedness.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey et al. (US PGPub 2016/0357339) in view of Wu (US PGPub 2014/0078082).
Regarding claim 1, Ritchey discloses a display method ([0047] and fig. 5A, method for location correction), applied to an electronic device (fig. 1A, touchscreen device), and comprising:
receiving a first sliding operation comprising a first action and a second action ([0050], a user drawing a line having line segments with a first and a second limits), wherein the first sliding operation is used to slide from a first position to a second position (fig. 3 and [0041], touch locations along a path); and the first action slides at a first speed, and the second action slides at a second speed; or the first action slides in a first direction, and the second action slides in a second direction ([0050], “In block 500, the method 30′ applies linear smoothing to the touch location. When the user is drawing a line that is straight within a first arbitrary limit, and the line segment extends longer than a second arbitrary limit, the location is adjusted to remain close to a line with a slope and position of the previous segments drawn” and [0051], “the method 30′ applies velocity-based curve smoothing to the location. Where a segment is short and its velocity vector is within a first arbitrary limit of a previously drawn segment, a correction is applied to smooth the path that is being generated”); and
displaying a touch track corresponding to the first sliding operation (fig. 3, corrected path), wherein a roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75 (fig. 3, corrected path is less jaggy than uncorrected path), the touch track is same as a sliding track corresponding to the first sliding operation ([0041], “a path CORRECTED drawn after applying an embodiment of a method for location correction to the path's locations as detected and processed by touchscreen device D1”),
the roughness of the touch track is used to describe a status of a sawtooth line comprised in an edge of the touch track (fig. 3, and [0041], “Touchscreen device D1 displays on touchscreen S1 a path UNCORRECTED drawn as detected and processed by touchscreen device D1 without the use of an embodiment of a method for location correction as disclosed herein, and also a path CORRECTED drawn after applying an embodiment of a method for location correction to the path's locations as detected and processed by touchscreen device D1. The path UNCORRECTED shows a jagged path, or “wavy line effect”, in which the touch locations generated by the capacitive touch sensor Z1 and touch sensor controller C1 are noticeably distorted by being pulled up or pulled down toward an electrode”).
While Ritchey discloses correction of a line extended in a longer direction at a different speed, it has been known to have a user draw in a first direction and a second direction. In a similar field of endeavor of touch screen displays, Wu discloses a display parameter corresponding to a third position changes when a touch point corresponding to the first sliding operation reaches the third position, and the third position is a position between the first position and the second position ([0056], “the predetermined operation for triggering the auxiliary displaying module may be a specific single point slide (such as an L-shaped slide or a U-shaped slide) or a multipoint slide”).
In view of the teachings of Ritchey and Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include the L-shaped slide of Wu within the touch input method of Ritchey, for the purpose of providing the known method of detecting a first input signal by the detecting module; triggering an auxiliary displaying module according to the first input signal, and displaying the auxiliary displaying module on the display module; detecting a second input signal by the detecting module; determining whether the second input signal is in a sensing zone corresponding to the auxiliary displaying module; and displaying a drawing track along an edge of the auxiliary displaying module according to the second input signal when the second input signal is in the sensing zone, which would improve a user’s experience with a touchscreen device by including a drawing track based on inputs from a user (Wu: [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ritchey and Wu further discloses wherein a larger difference between the first speed and the second speed indicates a smaller roughness of the touch track (Ritchey: [0051], “the method 30′ applies velocity-based curve smoothing to the location. Where a segment is short and its velocity vector is within a first arbitrary limit of a previously drawn segment, a correction is applied to smooth the path that is being generated”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ritchey and Wu further discloses wherein a larger difference between the first direction and the second direction indicates a smaller roughness of the touch track (Wu: [0056], “the predetermined operation for triggering the auxiliary displaying module may be a specific single point slide (such as an L-shaped slide or a U-shaped slide) or a multipoint slide”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ritchey and Wu further discloses wherein the display parameter comprises at least one of an icon, a color, or a brightness (Wu: [0055], “In the step T2, the processing module 130 may determine whether the detected first input signal is a predetermined operation to trigger the auxiliary displaying module, and the processing module 130 operationally triggers the auxiliary displaying module according to the first input signal. Different from the step S2 of the operating method 200, a plurality of triggering icons may be predetermined to be displayed in the embodiment, such as the triggering icon ICON_1 (which may be used for triggering the virtual ruler TOOL_1 in the FIG. 3) and the triggering icon ICON_2 which may be used (for triggering the virtual protractor TOOL_2 in FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B). When the processing module 130 determines that the detected first input signal (such as the single point click) is at the triggering icon of the display module 110, the processing module 130 triggers the auxiliary displaying module”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ritchey and Wu further discloses wherein the first sliding operation comprises at least one of a straight-line sliding, a broken-line sliding, or a curved sliding (Ritchey: fig. 3, and [0041], “The path UNCORRECTED shows a jagged path, or “wavy line effect”, in which the touch locations generated by the capacitive touch sensor Z1 and touch sensor controller C1 are noticeably distorted by being pulled up or pulled down toward an electrode. This distortion may be caused by at least two issues: saturation (or oversuppression) of the capacitors in the capacitive touch sensor Z1 by the electric field generated by the stylus, and under-detection by the stylus of the signal generated by the drive lines of the capacitive touch sensor Z1”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ritchey and Wu further discloses a display apparatus, comprising: a processor (Ritchey: [0037], processor P1); and a memory (Ritchey: [0037], memory M1) coupled to the processor and storing instructions (Ritchey: [0037], “The gestures may be made through various hand, and more particularly finger motions. Alternatively or additionally, the gestures may be made with a stylus. In all of these cases, the capacitive touch sensor Z1 receives the gestures and the touchscreen device D1 executes logic to carry out operations associated with the gestures, for example without limitation executing the logic using the processor P1. In addition, the memory M1 may include a gesture operational program, which may be part of the operating system or a separate application. The gestural operation program generally includes a set of instructions that recognizes the occurrence of gestures and informs one or more software agents of the gestures and/or what action(s) to take in response to the gestures. In addition, the memory M1 may include logic L1 for touch location correction involving embodiments based upon the present disclosure, which may be part of the operating system or a separate application”), which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: perform the method steps of claim 1 and is therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Claims 7 and 8 are apparatus claims drawn to the method of claims 2 and 3 respectively and are therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ritchey and Wu further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Ritchey: [0027], “a non-transitory memory M1 (a nontransitory computer-readable medium) on which a program including logic L1 implementing an embodiment of a touch location correction method 30 or 30′ is stored (typically along with other files and programs)”) having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to, perform the method steps of claim 1 and therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Claims 10-13 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims drawn to the method of claims 2-5 respectively and are therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b), Applicants argue “the specification provides an objective formula for determining roughness, and that the threshold of 0.75 is therefore ascertainable by one of ordinary skill” (pages 6-7), however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains [0096]-[0098] explain a moment “k”, however it is unclear how the moments k and k-1 would be selected. [0097] states “if the sliding track corresponding to the first sliding operation slides at a constant speed along an x axis, Ay(k) is close to 0, where Ay(k) is a “change in magnitude” of the “position change magnitude”, it is unclear how speed (and therefore constant speed) affects a change in magnitude, where a constant speed is required for Ay(k) to be near 0. Further, [0098] discusses “the roughness S(k) may be used to describe a change magnitude of a track without a direction”…”obtain roughness Savg of the touch track corresponding to the first sliding operation”. It is unclear if roughness is calculated using S(k) or Savg as both are defined as “roughness” in [0098]. It would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art which “roughness” applicants intend to use or how applicants are using the calculations to determine a roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 9, Applicants argue “with respect to the feature of ‘displaying a touch track corresponding to the first sliding operation, wherein a roughness of the touch track is less than 0.75’, Ritchey does not disclose or suggest this feature” (page 8), however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Applicants do not provide a definition for “0.75” either in the claims or in the Specification. Ritchey teaches correcting a touch path to be less jagged.
Further regarding claims 1, 6 and 9, Applicants argue “with respect to the feature of ‘the touch track is same as a sliding track corresponding to the first sliding operation’, Ritchey does not disclose or suggest this feature” (page 8), however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains Ritchey discloses [0050], "In block 500, the method 30' applies linear smoothing to the touch location. When the user is drawing a line that is straight within a first arbitrary limit, and the line segment extends longer than a second arbitrary limit, the location is adjusted to remain close to a line with a slope and position of the previous segments drawn" and [0051], "the method 30' applies velocity-based curve smoothing to the location. Where a segment is short and its velocity vector is within a first arbitrary limit of a previously drawn segment, a correction is applied to smooth the path that is being generated".
Finally, regarding claims 1, 6 and 9, Applicants argue “with respect to the feature of ‘a display parameter corresponding to a third position changes when a touch point corresponding to the first sliding operation reaches the third position’…Wu also does not disclose or suggest this feature” (page 9), however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains Wu discloses at [0055] and [0056] displaying a triggering icon based on a predetermined operation where an L-shaped slide is an example which would include a third point at the vertex in between the two endpoints making the “L” shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN104345877 discloses “And for example, when above-mentioned edge is still sideline 21, please refer to Fig. 3 B, this sideline 21 is still the straight line of y=0, now, user by cursor by the some A on viewing area 10 to a B linear slide, i.e. the first operation, now, M>1, so, electronic equipment judges whether each point on user's sliding trace is positioned on sideline 21, and from Fig. 3 B, straight-line segment AB is positioned on straight line y=0, so, generate the first steering order. Certainly, sometimes user there will be shake in sliding process, so, M positional information is not necessarily all on sideline 21, now, a threshold value can be set, such as 90%, 75% etc., as long as the point exceeding this threshold value quantity is on sideline 21, just think that this M positional information is located on sideline 21, be less than the point of this threshold value quantity on sideline 21, just think that this M positional information is not positioned on sideline 21, the value of concrete threshold value, those skilled in the art can according to actual conditions sets itself, and the application is not specifically limited” (page 4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMILY J FRANK whose telephone number is (571)270-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/EJF/
/BENJAMIN C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights