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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 19 incudes the word “if” when reciting a conditional statement. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, MPEP 2111, these limitations may be interpreted in the sense that the limitations occur when the conditional statement occurs, but also introduces the possibility that the conditional statement may not occur. If the condition for performing a conditional statement is not satisfied, the functionality recited by the statement need not be carried out in order for the claimed functionality to be performed. Since the claim fails to recite any specific limitations regarding the possibility that the conditional statement may not occur, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the possibility wherein no functionality is achieved when the conditional statement is not achieved. Examiner suggest changing “if” to “when” to positively recite the claim limitation.
Claim 1, page 1 - line 11 and line 13, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 2, page 1 - lines 14-15 and line 16, recite “an interrupt exception event”. Examiner suggest “the interrupt exception event”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 3, page 1 - lines 20-21, recite “an interrupt exception event”. Examiner suggest “the interrupt exception event”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 3, page 1 - line 21, recite “a working state”. Examiner suggest “the working state”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 2.
Claim 3, page 1 - line 22, recite “a screen-on state”. Examiner suggest “the screen-on state”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 2.
Claim 3, page 1 - line 2, recite “a gesture screen-off state”. Examiner suggest “the gesture screen-off state”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 2.
Claim 7, page 2 - lines 7-8, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 9, page 2 - line 20, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 10, page 3 - line 2 and line 4, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 11, page 3 - lines 5-6 and line 7, recite “an interrupt exception event”. Examiner suggest “the interrupt exception event”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 10.
Claim 12, page 3 - lines 11-12, recite “an interrupt exception event”. Examiner suggest “the interrupt exception event”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 10.
Claim 12, page 3 - line 12, recite “a working state”. Examiner suggest “the working state”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 11.
Claim 12, page 3 - line 13, recite “a screen-on state”. Examiner suggest “the screen-on state”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 11.
Claim 12, page 3 - line 13, recite “a gesture screen-off state”. Examiner suggest “the gesture screen-off state”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 11.
Claim 13, page 3 - line 17, recites “the processor configure to”. Examiner suggests “the processor is further configured to”.
Claim 16, page 3 - line 29, recites “the processor configure to”. Examiner suggests “the processor is further configured to”.
Claim 16, page 4 - line 1, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 17, page 4 - line 7, recites “the processor configure to”. Examiner suggests “the processor is further configured to”
Claim 18, page 4 - line 12, recites “the processor configure to”. Examiner suggests “the processor is further configured to”
Claim 18, page 4 - line 15, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 19 recites “cause the electronic device …to perform the following process”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “cause the electronic device …to perform operations comprising”.
Claim 19, page 4 - line 26 and line 28, recites “is used”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “is utilized” (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 20, page 4 – line 30 and line 31, recite “an interrupt exception event”. Examiner suggest “the interrupt exception event”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 19.
Claims 5 and 14 depend directly from objected claims. Therefore, are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-20 are 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 claim 19 recites “[a] computer-readable storage medium comprising computer instructions” and the specification does not explicitly state that the computer-readable storage medium excludes signals per se. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not an article or commodity under the definition of manufacture, even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in real world and has tangible causes and effects, and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as composition of matter.
Moreover, applicant' s disclosure uses terms like “maybe” and “for example” when describing the storage medium (para. [0250]). In addition, applicants’ specification recites “[w]hen the integrated unit is implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, the integrated unit may be stored in a readable storage medium. Based on such an understanding, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application essentially, or the part contributing to the conventional technology, or all or some of the technical solutions may be implemented in a form of a software product. The software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions for instructing a device (which may be a single-chip microcomputer, a chip, or the like) or a processor (processor) to perform all or some of the steps of the method in the embodiments of this application. The foregoing storage medium includes various media that can store program code, for example, a USB flash drive, a removable hard disk, a read-only memory (read only memory, ROM), a random access memory (random access memory, RAM), a magnetic disk, or an optical disc”, see para. [0250]. This embodiment is no more than computer program/software per se.
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “computer-readable storage medium” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). (MEPEP 2106.03 II …Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves)). Since the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission claims 19-20 are consider non-statutory. Examiner suggest adding the term “non-transitory”.
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20110012843 A, hereinafter referenced as Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches an exception event handling method, applied to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, a driving circuit 210, abstract, para. [0019]-[0020]. A touch-controlled electronic apparatus includes a touch screen and a method for controlling the touch-controlled electronic apparatus. As shown in FIG. 2, the touch-controlled electronic apparatus 100 includes, but is not limited to, a touch screen 130, a driving circuit 210, a micro-processing unit 250, and an executing unit 260), and the method comprises:
detecting a first interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]-[0020]. When the detecting unit 220 detects that the touch screen 130 receives the touch signal TU1. The determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the first area 110, the triggering unit 240 triggers the first interrupt request IR1. The micro-processing unit 250 is coupled to the triggering unit 240 of the driving circuit 210 for receiving the first interrupt request IR1);
determining, in response to the first interrupt request, whether an interrupt exception event occurs in the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]. When the determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the first area 110, the triggering unit 240 triggers the first interrupt request IR1; and when the determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the second area 120, the triggering unit 240 triggers the second interrupt request IR2), wherein the interrupt exception event indicates that an exception occurs on an interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]. The triggering unit 240 is coupled to the determining unit 230 for determining to trigger a first interrupt request IR1 or a second interrupt request IR2 according to the determining result DR1); and
if the interrupt exception event occurs in the touch panel integrated circuit, sending first notification information to a system process of the electronic device, and shielding the interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit, wherein the first notification information is used to notify the system process not to instruct to enable an interrupt response, and the interrupt response is used to respond to the interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (claim 1 recites the conjunction “if” when reciting a conditional step. The above limitations provide one option when the result is affirmative. However, fail to disclose the alternative path when the result is negative. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as required by MPEP 2111, this limitation may be interpreted in the sense that the limitation occurs when the condition step occurs, but also introduces the possibility that the conditional step may not occur, thereby rendering the limitation to be not positively recited. Since the claim fails to recite any specific limitations regarding the possibility that the conditional step may not occur, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the possibility wherein no functionality is achieved when the conditional step is not achieved. Therefore, the above interpretation has been considered during the examination of the claim. If the Applicant wishes a limitation to be positively recited, the claim must be amended to either recite limitation in the case wherein the conditional step does not occur or remove such a case from consideration by changing “if” to “when”).
Regarding Claim 10, Li teaches an electronic device (see Figs 1-2. a touch-controlled electronic apparatus 100, para. [0018], para. [0021]. The touch-controlled electronic apparatus 100 can be a handheld touch-controlled electronic apparatus, such as a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile phone or a PDA phone), comprising:
a touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, a driving circuit 210, para. [0019]-[0020]),
a memory storing a computer program comprising instructions (see para. [0022]. Please also note that the aforementioned detecting unit 220, the determining unit 230, and the triggering unit 240 can be implemented by software and/or firmware. Inherently the software/ firmware comprises memory with instructions); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device implement operations (see Fig. 2, a micro-processing unit 250, para. [0019]-[0020]) comprising:
detecting a first interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]-[0020]. When the detecting unit 220 detects that the touch screen 130 receives the touch signal TU1. The determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the first area 110, the triggering unit 240 triggers the first interrupt request IR1. The micro-processing unit 250 is coupled to the triggering unit 240 of the driving circuit 210 for receiving the first interrupt request IR1);
determining, in response to the first interrupt request, whether an interrupt exception event occurs in the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]. When the determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the first area 110, the triggering unit 240 triggers the first interrupt request IR1; and when the determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the second area 120, the triggering unit 240 triggers the second interrupt request IR2), wherein the interrupt exception event indicates that an exception occurs on an interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]. The triggering unit 240 is coupled to the determining unit 230 for determining to trigger a first interrupt request IR1 or a second interrupt request IR2 according to the determining result DR1); and
if the interrupt exception event occurs in the touch panel integrated circuit, sending first notification information to a system process of the electronic device, and shielding the interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit, wherein the first notification information is used to notify the system process not to instruct to enable an interrupt response, and the interrupt response is used to respond to the interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (claim 1 recites the conjunction “if” when reciting a conditional step. The above limitations provide one option when the result is affirmative. However, fail to disclose the alternative path when the result is negative. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as required by MPEP 2111, this limitation may be interpreted in the sense that the limitation occurs when the condition step occurs, but also introduces the possibility that the conditional step may not occur, thereby rendering the limitation to be not positively recited. Since the claim fails to recite any specific limitations regarding the possibility that the conditional step may not occur, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the possibility wherein no functionality is achieved when the conditional step is not achieved. Therefore, the above interpretation has been considered during the examination of the claim. If the Applicant wishes a limitation to be positively recited, the claim must be amended to either recite limitation in the case wherein the conditional step does not occur or remove such a case from consideration by changing “if” to “when”).
Regarding Claim 19, Li teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer instructions that (see para. [0022]. Please also note that the aforementioned detecting unit 220, the determining unit 230, and the triggering unit 240 can be implemented by software and/or firmware. Inherently the software/ firmware comprises memory with instructions), when executed on an electronic device (see Figs 1-2. a touch-controlled electronic apparatus 100, para. [0018], para. [0021]. The touch-controlled electronic apparatus 100 can be a handheld touch-controlled electronic apparatus, such as a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile phone or a PDA phone), cause the electronic device equipped with a touch panel integrated circuit to perform the following process(see Fig. 2, a driving circuit 210, para. [0019]-[0020]):
detecting a first interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]-[0020]. When the detecting unit 220 detects that the touch screen 130 receives the touch signal TU1. The determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the first area 110, the triggering unit 240 triggers the first interrupt request IR1. The micro-processing unit 250 is coupled to the triggering unit 240 of the driving circuit 210 for receiving the first interrupt request IR1);
determining, in response to the first interrupt request, whether an interrupt exception event occurs in the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]. When the determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the first area 110, the triggering unit 240 triggers the first interrupt request IR1; and when the determining result DR1 of the determining unit 230 indicates that the touched position P1 of the touch signal TU1 is located on the second area 120, the triggering unit 240 triggers the second interrupt request IR2), wherein the interrupt exception event indicates that an exception occurs on an interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0019]. The triggering unit 240 is coupled to the determining unit 230 for determining to trigger a first interrupt request IR1 or a second interrupt request IR2 according to the determining result DR1); and
if the interrupt exception event occurs in the touch panel integrated circuit, sending first notification information to a system process of the electronic device, and shielding the interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit, wherein the first notification information is used to notify the system process not to instruct to enable an interrupt response, and the interrupt response is used to respond to the interrupt request from the touch panel integrated circuit (claim 1 recites the conjunction “if” when reciting a conditional step. The above limitations provide one option when the result is affirmative. However, fail to disclose the alternative path when the result is negative. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as required by MPEP 2111, this limitation may be interpreted in the sense that the limitation occurs when the condition step occurs, but also introduces the possibility that the conditional step may not occur, thereby rendering the limitation to be not positively recited. Since the claim fails to recite any specific limitations regarding the possibility that the conditional step may not occur, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the possibility wherein no functionality is achieved when the conditional step is not achieved. Therefore, the above interpretation has been considered during the examination of the claim. If the Applicant wishes a limitation to be positively recited, the claim must be amended to either recite limitation in the case wherein the conditional step does not occur or remove such a case from consideration by changing “if” to “when”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250130710 A1 - MATSUZAKI - Touch panel with a detection unit that detect a long press and notifies a control unit of an interrupt based on a continuous long press when detecting a break.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVELISSE MARTINEZ QUILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 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.
/IM/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 6/22/26
Prosecution Insights