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 .
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 December 29, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (USPGPUB 2014/0062877—hereinafter “Lee”).
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are drawn to an electronic apparatus, a method of controlling an electronic apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite the same invention in different statutory formats and thus are considered together below.
As to Claims 1, 11 and 16, Lee teaches an electronic apparatus (Fig. 1 at 100) comprising:
memory storing one or more instructions and a first touch type (Fig. 1 at 140 and Pg. 2, ¶ 42 and Pg. 3, ¶ 58);
a communication interface (Fig. 1 at 130);
a display (Fig. 1 at 160); and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (Fig. 1 at 150), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic apparatus to:
receive a first touch signal from a terminal device through the communication interface (Pg. 2, ¶’s 42, 46 and 48-50 and Pg. 3, ¶ 70),
based on the first touch signal comprising the first touch type, control the display to display a first menu user interface (UI) indicating at least one function performable on the electronic apparatus (Figs. 2-6 at 300 and Pg. 2, ¶’s 42, 46 and 48),
receive a second touch signal comprising a drag from the terminal device through the communication interface (See Fig. 2 and Pg. 2, ¶’s 49-50), and
based on a first drag direction being identified based on the second touch signal, perform a function corresponding to the first drag direction among the at least one function through the first menu UI (See Figs. 2-6 and Pg. 2, ¶’s 50 and 53 and Pg. 3, ¶’s 55-57, 60-62 and 67-68, 70).
As to Claims 3, 13 and 18, Lee teaches that the first menu UI comprises a UI indicating the at least one function (Fig. 6 at first 310), wherein the memory stores a mapping table that maps the at least one function to a placement direction of the UI indicating the at least one function (Fig. 7 at S404 and Pg. 4, ¶ 70), and wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic apparatus to: based on identifying the first drag direction, identify the placement direction that matches the first drag direction based on the mapping table, and perform a function corresponding to the identified placement direction (Fig. 6 and Pg. 3, ¶ 67-70).
As to Claims 4, 14 and 19, Lee teaches that the first menu UI comprises a first UI indicating a first function (Fig. 6 at first 310) and a second UI indicating a second function (Fig. 6 at second or third 310), and wherein the mapping table comprises: first mapping information that maps the first function to a first direction corresponding to a direction in which the first UI is placed relative to a center point of the first menu UI, and second mapping information that maps the second function to a second direction corresponding to a direction in which the second UI is placed relative to the center point of the first menu UI (Fig. 6 and Pg. 3, ¶ 67-70).
As to Claims 5, 15 and 20, Lee teaches that based on identifying the first drag direction, identify a direction that matches the first drag direction among the first direction and the second direction, and based on the first drag direction matching the first direction, perform the first function corresponding to the first direction (Fig. 6 and Pg. 3, ¶ 67-70).
As to Claim 6, Lee teaches that the memory stores a second touch type (Pg. 2, ¶ 49) and receiving a third touch signal from the terminal device through the communication interface, and based on the third touch signal comprising the second touch type, control the display to display a second menu UI indicating the at least one function, and wherein the second menu UI has a different appearance from the first menu UI (Pg. 3, ¶ 68, note “long bar horizontally…drawing right and left”).
As to Claim 7, Lee teaches that the second touch type comprises an edge swipe and hold, and wherein the edge swipe is a swipe input that moves from an edge region of the terminal device to its central region among all its regions (Pg. 3, ¶’s 61-65).
As to Claim 8, Lee teaches receiving a fourth touch signal comprising a drag from the terminal device through the communication interface, and based on the identifying a second drag direction based on the fourth touch signal, perform a function corresponding to the second drag direction among the at least one function which is performable through the second menu UI (Fig. 6 and Pg. 3, ¶ 67-68).
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.
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.
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) 2, 9, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
As to Claims 2, 12 and 17, Lee fails to teach that the first touch type comprises a double tap and hold or a long press, wherein the long press is a touch that exceeds a predetermined duration. Lee, however, does state that “the motion may include any motion to be input according to an intuitive instruction given by the user” (See Pg. 2, ¶ 49) and a “touch-and-draw” method that includes “touching the display of the remote control unit and moving a finger while maintaining contact with the display of the remote control unit” (See Pg. 2, ¶ 53 – “while maintaining contact”). Examiner takes Official notice that gestures such as double tap and hold or long presses are well-known and intuitive instructions. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the double tap and hold or a long press gestures since these gestures are old and well-known intuitive gestures.
As to Claim 9, Lee teaches that the memory stores a third touch type (Pg. 2, ¶ 49), and wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic apparatus to: receive a fifth touch signal from the terminal device through the communication interface, based on the fifth touch signal comprising the third touch type, identify a third drag direction based on the fifth touch signal, and perform a function corresponding to the third drag direction without displaying the first menu UI (Fig. 6 and Pg. 3, ¶ 67-68). Lee, however, fails to teach that the third touch type comprises a double tap, hold and drag. Lee, however, does state that “the motion may include any motion to be input according to an intuitive instruction given by the user” (See Pg. 2, ¶ 49). Examiner takes Official notice that gestures such as double tap, hold and drag are well-known and intuitive instructions. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the double tap, hold and drag gesture, since this gestures is an old and well-known intuitive gesture.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Amma et al. (USPGPUB 2025/0042524—hereinafter “Amma”).
As to Claim 10, Lee teaches transmitting the control instruction to the terminal device through the communication interface (Fig. 1 at 130 and Pg. 2, ¶ 42). Lee, however, fails to teach based on the function corresponding to the first drag direction corresponds to a predetermined mode, generating a control instruction for displaying a background screen of a color indicating the predetermined mode, and receiving a sixth touch signal input from the terminal device through the communication interface while the background screen is displayed, and perform a function corresponding to the sixth touch signal. Examiner cites Amma to teach that it is well-known to change the background color of a display according to a predetermined mode (Pg. 8, ¶ 100). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to change a background color of a display according to a predetermined mode, as taught by Amma, in the electronic apparatus taught by Lee, in order to intuitively recognize the predetermined mode (Amma, Pg. 8, ¶ 100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Skinner (USPGPUB 2006/0119585 – Figs. 1-4).
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM 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, 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.
/RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights