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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 09, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on October 16, 2025 are acceptable.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 16/276,283 filed on February 14, 2019, now U.S. Patent 11,587,412 and U.S. application no. 18/146,950 filed on December 27, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,469,368 ("Parent Application"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 14-15 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,587,412. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1, 10 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,587,412 to achieve the recited functions and/or structure found in independent claims 2, 11 and 17 of Application no. 19/360,271 (i.e., the instant application) because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18:
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 18 of the instant application recites:
“receiving, by the computing device, third input corresponding to the finger or another finger being placed at a third location of the touchscreen display; displaying, by the computing device, a second keypad on the touchscreen display such that the second keypad is substantially centered at the third location and the second keypad includes second symbols of the plurality of symbols and the second symbols are positioned around the third location; receiving, by the computing device, a fourth input corresponding to a second swipe from the third location to a fourth location of the touchscreen display; and selecting, by the computing device, a second symbol of the second symbols of the second keypad that corresponds to the fourth location or a second direction of the second swipe.”
An analogous feature is found in claims 1, 5 and 15 of the ’412 patent (i.e., claims 1, 5 and 15: “receiving, at the touchscreen display, a third input at a third location… receiving a fourth input corresponding to a gesture connecting a fourth location of the touchscreen display to a fifth… receiving, at the touchscreen display, a second input on the keypad, wherein a gesture of the second input connects… the second location of the touchscreen display corresponding to a particular symbol of the keypad… receiving a fourth input corresponding to a gesture connecting a fourth location of the touchscreen display to a fifth location the touchscreen display, the fourth location corresponding to a second particular number of the keypad…” Accordingly, claim 3, 12 and 18 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 5 and 15 of the ’412 patent.
Regarding claim 4:
Dependent claim 4 of the instant application recites:
“wherein the symbols comprise at least one of numbers or letters.” An analogous feature is found in claims 20 of the ’412 patent (i.e., claim 20 the symbols comprise numbers included in the keypad). Accordingly, claim 4 are not patentably distinct from claim 20 of the ’412 patent.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19:
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 19 of the instant application recites: “outputting, by the computing device, an audio indication of the symbol of the keypad that corresponds to the second location or the direction of the swipe.” An analogous feature is found in claims 14 and 21 of the ’412 patent (i.e., “outputting first audio representing a first instruction to place an input implement on the display; and based at least in part on the determining the positioning, outputting second audio representing a second instruction associated with swiping the input implement over the display in order to indicate the symbol”). Accordingly, claims 6, 13 and 19 are not patentably distinct from claims 14 and 21 of the ’412 patent.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20:
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 of the instant application recites: “responsive at least in part to selecting the symbol, transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of the symbol to another computing device.” An analogous feature is found in claims 5 and 15 of the ’412 patent (i.e., “determining to conclude receiving the information based at least in part on the sixth -fourth
input; and sending, by the electronic device, the information to one or more computing devices for satisfying the cost of the transaction.”). Accordingly, claim 7, 14 and 20 are not patentably distinct from claims 5 and 15 of the ’412 patent.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 10, 12, 15 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,368. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1, 10 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,368 to achieve the recited functions and/or structure found in independent claims 2, 11 and 17 of Application no. 19/360,271 (i.e., the instant application) because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18:
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 18 of the instant application recites:
“receiving, by the computing device, third input corresponding to the finger or another finger being placed at a third location of the touchscreen display; displaying, by the computing device, a second keypad on the touchscreen display such that the second keypad is substantially centered at the third location and the second keypad includes second symbols of the plurality of symbols and the second symbols are positioned around the third location; receiving, by the computing device, a fourth input corresponding to a second swipe from the third location to a fourth location of the touchscreen display; and selecting, by the computing device, a second symbol of the second symbols of the second keypad that corresponds to the fourth location or a second direction of the second swipe.”
An analogous feature is found in claims 1, 10 and 19 of the ’368 patent (i.e., receiving, by the electronic device a third input at a third location of the display, wherein the third input comprises a second touch, performed by the user, using the input implement; displaying, by the electronic device, on the display, the user interface comprising the keypad, the keypad being substantially centered at the third location of the display with the multiple symbols of the keypad being visually presented on the display, and the at least some of the multiple symbols being positioned around the third location of the display; receiving, by the electronic device, a fourth input corresponding to a predefined gesture; determining, by the electronic device, to conclude receiving the information based at least in part on the fourth input;). Accordingly, claim 3, 12 and 18 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 10 and 19 of the ’368 patent.
Regarding claim 4:
Dependent claims 4 of the instant application recites: “wherein the symbols comprise at least one of numbers or letters.”
An analogous feature is found in claims 6 and 15 of the ’368 patent (i.e., the symbols comprise numbers included in the keypad). Accordingly, claim 4 is not patentably distinct from claims 6 and 15 of the ’368 patent.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19:
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 19 of the instant application recites: “outputting, by the computing device, an audio indication of the symbol of the keypad that corresponds to the second location or the direction of the swipe”
An analogous feature is found in claims 7, 12 and 20 of the ’368 patent (i.e., outputting, by the electronic device, second audio representing a second instruction associated with swiping the input implement over the display in order to select the symbol.). Accordingly, claims 6, 13 and 19 are not patentably distinct from claims 7, 12 and 20 of the ’368 patent.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20:
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 of the instant application recites: “responsive at least in part to selecting the symbol, transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of the symbol to another computing device.”
An analogous feature is found in claims 1, 10 and 19 of the ’368 patent (i.e., “determining, by the electronic device, to conclude receiving the information based at least in part on the fourth input; and sending, by the electronic device, the information to one or more computing devices for satisfying the cost of the transaction.”). Accordingly, claim 7, 14 and 20 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 10 and 19 of the ’368 patent.
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.
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.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2014/0181722 A1) hereinafter "Kim" in view of Klein et al. {US 20180095588 A1), hereinafter "Klein".
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17: Kim disclose:
Claim 2: A computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 11: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, (Kim, Fig. 1A; [0056]) when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
Claim 17: A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, (Kim, Fig. 1A; Fig. 1B; [0036]) wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
receiving, by a computing device with a touchscreen display, first input corresponding to a finger being placed at a first location of the touchscreen display; (See at least Kim, [0061]; first touch screen).
displaying, by the computing device, a keypad on the touchscreen display such that the keypad is substantially centered at the first location with symbols of the keypad positioned around the first location; (See at least Kim, [0059-0062] e.g., input buttons are set based on the first touch is generated; first touch input button is generated in the areas where the first touch inputs have been generated.)
receiving, by the computing device, a second input corresponding to a swipe from the first location to a second location of the touchscreen display; and (See at least Kim, [0060-0064] A second touch input is identified in an area comprising the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth Braille area 711,712,713,714,715,716, 717,or718ofthe8Brailleinput areas. A point where the second touch input event has been generated enables identification of the corresponding key input (see FIGS. SA and SB). For example, when the second touch input is generated in the input button corresponding to the first Braille 711, the terminal identifies the input of a letter "a".)
Kim does not explicitly disclose, however Klein teaches; selecting, by the computing device, a symbol of symbols of the keypad that corresponds to the second location or a direction of the swipe. (See at least Klein, [0034]. Options presentable on the display such as numerical input for a PIN number.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the touch screen display of KIM and include Klein's screen such that the numbers are both visually presented and radially distributed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-readable media of claim 11 and the system of claim 17. The combination further disclose wherein the keypad is a first keypad, the swipe is a first swipe, the direction is a first direction, and the symbols are first symbols of a plurality of symbols, the computer-implemented method further comprising:
displaying, by the computing device, a second keypad on the touchscreen display such that the second keypad is substantially centered at the third location and the second keypad includes second symbols of the plurality of symbols and the second symbols are positioned around the third location; (See at least Kim, [0059-0062])
receiving, by the computing device, a fourth input corresponding to a second swipe from the third location to a fourth location of the touchscreen display; and (See at least Kim, Fig. 1A; [0034]; [0042]; [0055]; [0063])
selecting, by the computing device, a second symbol of the second symbols of the second keypad that corresponds to the fourth location or a second direction of the second swipe. (See at least Kim, Fig. 1A; [0034]; [0042]; [0055]; [0063])
Klein further disclose receiving, by the computing device, third input corresponding to the finger or another finger being placed at a third location of the touchscreen display; (See at least Klein, [0034]. Options presentable on the display such as numerical input for a PIN number.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the touch screen display of KIM and include Klein's screen such that the numbers are both visually presented and radially distributed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-readable media of claim 11 and the system of claim 17. The combination further disclose wherein the symbols comprise at least one of numbers or letters (See at least Klein, [0031]; [0034-0035]; A tactile cue 120 is preferably configured to indicate (e.g., describe, represent, shaped in the form of, etc.) a corresponding touch input option (e.g., number inputs, character inputs, confirmatory inputs, etc.), but can additionally or alternatively describe a corresponding POS system component ( e.g., position, type, etc.).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the touch screen display of KIM and include Klein's screen such that the numbers are both visually presented, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2. The combination further disclose wherein the symbols comprise at least one of punctuation marks or representations of items. (See at least Klein, [0031]; [0034-0035]; A tactile cue 120 is preferably configured to indicate (e.g., describe, represent, shaped in the form of, etc.) a corresponding touch input option (e.g., number inputs, character inputs, confirmatory inputs, etc.), but can additionally or alternatively describe a corresponding POS system component ( e.g., position, type, etc.).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the touch screen display of KIM and include Klein's screen such that the numbers are both visually presented, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-readable media of claim 11 and the system of claim 17. The combination further disclose: outputting, by the computing device, an audio indication of the symbol of the keypad that corresponds to the second location or the direction of the swipe. (See at least Kim, Fig. 1A; [0034]; [0042]; [0055]; [0063]) The microphone 162 receives a voice or a sound to generate an electrical signal in response to control of the controller 110.)
Regarding claims 8, 15 and 21: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-readable media of claim 11 and the system of claim 17. The combination further disclose: responsive at least in part to selecting the symbol, causing presentation of the symbol by the computing device on the touchscreen display or on a display of another computing device. (See at least Kim, Fig. 2; [0047] a step of generating input buttons including virtual buttons in the areas where the first touch input has been generated.)
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Klein as applied to claims 2, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Singhal (US 20140297434 Al), "Singhal".
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-readable media of claim 11 and the system of claim 17. The combination further disclose: responsive at least in part to selecting the symbol, transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of the symbol to another computing device. (See at least Singhal, [0038-0039]; [0100-0102] Next, the data from the payment card 30, the merchant identifier and payment amount is then sent to the gateway 23 using the merchant network interface 22B.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Singhal would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Singhal to the teachings of the above combination would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such type of data sent into similar systems.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Klein as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Kao (US 20050140658 A1), "Kao".
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Kim and Klein disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Kao teaches: wherein the keypad is square or rectangular, and wherein the symbols are four symbols located at top, bottom, left, and right sides of the keypad respectively. (See at least Kao, claim 11; The keypad for entering alphanumerical data, as recited in claim 5, wherein said multidirectional key is square shaped, said center portion is define on a center of said square for imprinted said numeral, and said top portion, said bottom portion, said left portion and said right portion said characters are respectively provided at four corners of said square to selectively imprint said characters.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Kao’s teachings in order to simplify the keypad and improve managing of a transaction.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Klein as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Cohen (US 6611253 B1), "Cohen".
Regarding claims 10 and 16: The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving, by the computing device, user input associated with a request to assign the symbols to the keypad; and (See at least Cohen, Col. 8 lines 1-10; Changeable keys software 34 now enables the user to assign (define) any symbol on any key of virtual keyboard 42a, either through direct instructions (definitions originating from the user) or through the use of software instructions or programs originating from various sources, including software vendors and Internet sites.)
responsive to receiving the user input, storing, by the computing device, an association between the symbols and positions on the keypad. (See at least Cohen, Col. 8 lines 1-10; Changeable keys software 34 now enables the user to assign (define) any symbol on any key of virtual keyboard 42a, either through direct instructions (definitions originating from the user) or through the use of software instructions or programs originating from various sources, including software vendors and Internet sites.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Cohen’s teachings in order to improve input efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho, US 20150040056 A1 - As to the method for providing a character input interface by using a touch screen, in the state that the touch screen displays virtual buttons corresponding to individual characters, symbols and so on, when a position at which a touching or scratching gesture is input is sensed, a character corresponding to a virtual button of the sensed position is input. Cho, [0008].
Bengtsson, US 20130172052 A1 - Icons, text, symbols or the like of the user interface may be presented to the user on the hard coat layer 11, wherein the icon and the like are printed on the hard coat layer or, in an portable device wherein positions of menus or functions and the like, for example, of the touch panel, may change during use, the different icons, symbols or the like, is displayed from an active display arranged below the touch panel. An embodiment of an electronic device may also comprise a combination of an illuminating arrangement from below and printed symbols on the hard coat layer 11. Bengtsson, [0120].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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 McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights