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 § 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, 2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huppi et al. (US 20160062530 A1, hereafter Huppi).
Regarding claim 1, Huppi teaches a frame interaction method for an electronic device, wherein a touch button is disposed on the electronic device, the touch button being configured to detect one or more of a sliding operation or a pressing operation of a user ([0050]-[0051], where the touch device senses sliding and pushing input on an interface having virtual buttons), the method comprising:
displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface ([0051], where a GUI is displayed);
detecting a first operation performed on the touch button (Fig. 13, [0148]-[0149], where force is applied to the home button of the user interface); and
performing a first function based on the detecting, the first function comprises at least one of locking a screen, adjusting a parameter, or starting an application, and the parameter comprises one or more of a system parameter or an application parameter (Fig. 13, [0148]-[0154], where an appropriate command is executed; [0062]-[0064], commands including, for example, launching an application).
Regarding claim 2, Huppi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein when the first operation performed on the touch button is detected, a first display element is displayed in the first interface, and the first display element indicates the first function (Fig. 11, [0061]-[0062], [0140]-[0143], where user interface elements are displayed according to context, including plural music player controls).
Regarding claim 7, Huppi teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: when a second operation performed on the touch button is detected, displaying a second display element in the first interface, wherein the second display element indicates a second function, and the second function is different from the first function (Fig. 11, [0140]-[0143], where user interface elements are displayed according to context, including plural music player controls).
Regarding claim 9, Huppi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first function is determined based on the first interface and a type of the first operation (Fig. 13, [0148]-[0154], where an appropriate command is executed; [0062]-[0064], commands including, for example, launching an application when an application icon button is pressed).
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.
Claims 3-6, 8, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi et al. (US 20160062530 A1, hereafter Huppi) in view of Hernandez Santisteban et al. (US 20180329461 A1, hereafter Hernandez).
Regarding claim 3, Huppi would show the method according to claim 2. But, Huppi does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first function is adjusting the parameter, the first display element is a parameter adjustment bar, and the parameter adjustment bar indicates a current value of a first parameter in the electronic device.
However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Hernandez (Fig. 3, [0031], where there is a GUI control 27A having a handle 28A that is slid by the user to adjust a volume parameter, the current position of the handle reflecting the current volume). Both Huppi and Hernandez teach touch-sensitive display devices with graphic user interface elements. Huppi teaches sliding operations but does not specifically teach a sliding operation adjusting the value of a parameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a GUI element permitting fine-grained adjustment of a system parameter to offer the user additional methods of input.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 3. Hernandez in the combination teaches the method wherein the first operation is a sliding operation, a sliding direction is a length direction of the electronic device, and the first function is adjusting the value of the first parameter ([0031], where there is a GUI control 27A having a handle 28A that is slid by the user to adjust a volume parameter).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 3. Hernandez in the combination teaches the method wherein when a second operation performed on the touch button is detected, a second display element is displayed in the first interface, the second display element indicates a current value of a second parameter in the electronic device, and the second parameter is different from the first parameter (Fig. 3, [0030]-[0032], where there is a second GUI control 27B with a handle 28B that controls a second parameter different than the first parameter).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 5. Hernandez in the combination teaches the method wherein: the first parameter and the second parameter are system parameters, and the system parameters comprise at least one of a system volume, a message alert tone volume, a speaker volume, a microphone volume, a media playing volume, or brightness; or the first parameter and the second parameter are camera application parameters, the camera application parameters comprise at least one of a focal length, light sensitivity (ISO), aperture, white balance, exposure compensation, a shutter speed, or a filter mode ([0031], where the first parameter is system volume adjustment).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 5. Hernandez in the combination teaches the method wherein the second operation is a sliding operation, and a sliding direction is a thickness direction of the electronic device (Fig. 3, [0032], where the second parameter is adjusted in a width or thickness direction of the display, as opposed to the length direction of the first parameter).
Regarding claim 14, Huppi teaches a frame interaction method for an electronic device, wherein a touch button is disposed on the electronic device, the touch button being configured to detect one or more of a sliding operation or a pressing operation of a user ([0050]-[0051], where the touch device senses sliding and pushing input on an interface having virtual buttons), the method comprising:
displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface ([0051], where a GUI is displayed); and
detecting a first operation performed on the touch button (Fig. 13, [0148]-[0149], where force is applied to the home button of the user interface).
But, Huppi does not explicitly teach the method further comprising:
displaying a first parameter adjustment bar in the first interface based on the detecting the first operation, the first parameter adjustment bar indicating a current value of a first parameter in the electronic device;
detecting a second operation performed on the touch button; and
displaying a second parameter adjustment bar based on the detecting the second operation, the second parameter adjustment bar indicating a current value of a second parameter in the electronic device, the second parameter being different from the first parameter.
However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Hernandez, where Hernandez teach the method comprising:
displaying a first parameter adjustment bar in the first interface based on the detecting the first operation, the first parameter adjustment bar indicating a current value of a first parameter in the electronic device (Fig. 3, [0031], where there is a GUI control 27A having a handle 28A that is slid by the user to adjust a volume parameter, the current position of the handle reflecting the current volume);
detecting a second operation performed on the touch button (Fig. 3, [0030]-[0032], where there is a second GUI control 27B with a handle 28B that controls a second parameter different than the first parameter); and
displaying a second parameter adjustment bar based on the detecting the second operation, the second parameter adjustment bar indicating a current value of a second parameter in the electronic device, the second parameter being different from the first parameter (Fig. 3, [0030]-[0032], where there is a second GUI control 27B with a handle 28B that controls a second parameter different than the first parameter).
Both Huppi and Hernandez teach touch-sensitive display devices with graphic user interface elements. Huppi teaches sliding operations but does not specifically teach a sliding operation adjusting the value of a parameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a GUI element permitting fine-grained adjustment of a system parameter to offer the user additional methods of input.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 14. Huppi further teaches the method wherein the touch button does not protrude from a frame of the electronic device ([0050]-[0051], where a virtual button on a touch display does not protrude).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 14. Hernandez in the combination further teaches the method wherein when the first operation performed on the touch button is detected, the parameter adjustment bar adjusts the value of the first parameter ([0031], where movement of the handle 28A reflects adjustment of the value of the parameter).
Regarding claim 18, Huppi teaches a frame interaction method for an electronic device, wherein a touch button is disposed on the electronic device, the touch button being configured to detect one or more of a sliding operation or a pressing operation of a user ([0050]-[0051], where the touch device senses sliding and pushing input on an interface having virtual buttons), the method comprising:
displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface ([0051], where a GUI is displayed);
detecting a first operation performed on the touch button (Fig. 13, [0148]-[0149], where force is applied to the home button of the user interface).
But, Huppi does not explicitly teach the method further comprising adjusting a first parameter of the electronic device based on the detecting the first operation, the first operation comprises a sliding operation, and a sliding direction comprises a length direction of the electronic device.
However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Hernandez (Fig. 3, [0031], where there is a GUI control 27A having a handle 28A that is slid by the user to adjust a volume parameter, the current position of the handle reflecting the current volume). Both Huppi and Hernandez teach touch-sensitive display devices with graphic user interface elements. Huppi teaches sliding operations but does not specifically teach a sliding operation adjusting the value of a parameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a GUI element permitting fine-grained adjustment of a system parameter to offer the user additional methods of input.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 18. Hernandez in the combination further teaches the method wherein the adjusting the first parameter of the electronic device comprises adjusting a value of the first parameter ([0031], where there is a GUI control 27A having a handle 28A that is slid by the user to adjust a volume parameter).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi et al. (US 20160062530 A1, hereafter Huppi) in view of Mine et al. (US 20220279114 A1, hereafter Mine).
Regarding claim 10, Huppi would show the method according to claim 1. But, Huppi does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first interface is a focus interface of a camera application, the first operation comprises sliding in a length direction of the electronic device, and the first function comprises switching a focus object. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Mine (Fig. 2, [0049]-[0052], where there is a user interface 200 having a slider 220 with slider button 221 that is manipulated to change the focus, resulting in changing the subject in focus). Both Huppi and Mine teach touch-sensitive devices having user interfaces. Huppi discloses camera functionality generally ([0082]-[0083]), but does not teach a user interface for camera operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement camera functionality in Huppi using the interface taught by Mine and such an implementation would yield a predictable result.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi et al. (US 20160062530 A1, hereafter Huppi) in view of Li (US 20200204725 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Huppi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device has a frame (Fig. 1C, [0041], where the device has a frame or enclosure 16). But, Huppi does not teach the method wherein the touch button is disposed on the frame. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Li ([0046], where the frame is provided with an edge touch sensor for user input). Both Huppi and Li teach touch-sensitive devices capable of receiving slide operations, etc. Huppi’s Figure 1C shows a button mounted on the frame but does not provide further explicit disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use edge touch sensors as taught by Li to permit the adjustment of parameters without the user’s own fingers blocking sight of the display.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Huppi and Li would show the touch method according to claim 11. Li in the combination further teaches the method wherein the touch button is disposed on a right side frame of the electronic device ([0046], where the frame is provided with an edge touch sensor for user input on any side of the device).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Huppi and Li would show the touch method according to claim 11. Li in the combination further teaches the method wherein the touch button does not protrude from the frame (Fig. 3, [0046], where edge touch sensors are flush with the side of the frame as shown in the figure).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi et al. (US 20160062530 A1, hereafter Huppi) in view of Hernandez Santisteban et al. (US 20180329461 A1, hereafter Hernandez) and Mine et al. (US 20220279114 A1, hereafter Mine).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 14. But, the combination does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first interface is a camera application interface, and the first parameter is a focal length. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Mine (Fig. 2, [0049]-[0052], where there is a user interface 200 having a slider 220 with slider button 221 that is manipulated to change the focus, resulting in changing the subject in focus). Both Huppi and Mine teach touch-sensitive devices having user interfaces. Huppi discloses camera functionality generally ([0082]-[0083]), but does not teach a user interface for camera operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement camera functionality in Huppi using the interface taught by Mine and such an implementation would yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Huppi and Hernandez would show the method according to claim 18. But, the combination does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first interface is a photographing interface, the first parameter is a photographing focus location, and the adjusting the first parameter of the electronic device comprises switching a photographing focus object. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Mine (Fig. 2, [0049]-[0052], where there is a user interface 200 having a slider 220 with slider button 221 that is manipulated to change the focus, resulting in changing the subject in focus). Both Huppi and Mine teach touch-sensitive devices having user interfaces. Huppi discloses camera functionality generally ([0082]-[0083]), but does not teach a user interface for camera operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement camera functionality in Huppi using the interface taught by Mine and such an implementation would yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D MCLOONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 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, Amr Awad can be reached at 5712727764. 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.
/PETER D MCLOONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
