Patent Application 18582723 - DIFFUSION-BASED HANDEDNESS CLASSIFICATION FOR

Title: DIFFUSION-BASED HANDEDNESS CLASSIFICATION FOR TOUCH-BASED INPUT

Application Information

Invention Title: DIFFUSION-BASED HANDEDNESS CLASSIFICATION FOR TOUCH-BASED INPUT
Application Number: 18582723
Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2024-02-21T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2024-02-21T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 345
National Sub-Class: 173000
Examiner Employee Number: 82192
Art Unit: 2619
Tech Center: 2600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

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 .

DETAILED ACTION

RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT

Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 04/28/2025, in which:
Claims 1, 8-9, and 16-17 are amended; and the rejections of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-20
are currently pending and an Office Action on the merits follows.

POTENTIAL ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER

Claims 7, 15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be potentially allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims contingent upon the double patenting rejection being overcome. Claims 7, 15, and 20 are objected because the cited references do not disclose “generate a first classification for the first touch-based input based at least on the score, a second classification generated for a previously received touch-based input, and a diffusion factor representative of a dependency between the first touch-based input and the previously received touch-based input; and classify the handedness for the first touch-based input based at least on the first classification.“

DOUBLE PATENTING

The double patenting rejection from previous office action is maintained.

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.

1. Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon et al. US 10082936 in view of Sleeman et al. US 20100289754 and further in view of Kim et al. US 20140152576.

Consider claim 1. Dillon discloses a computing device fig. 2 102 col. 2 lines 26-33 fig. 8 800, comprising:
a processor fig. 9 902; and
a memory device that stores program code structured to cause the processor to fig. 9 memory 904 connected to processor 902 col. 10 lines 11-16:
receive, by a touch interface of the computing device, a first touch-based input applied by a contact instrument fig. 1-3-f figs 5a-f;
generate a score indicating a probability whether the first touch-based input was inputted by a particular hand of a user col. 7 line 40-col. 8 line 19 values between 0-100% or between 0-1 representing probability of left or right handedness;
classify a handedness for the first touch-based input based at least on the score col. 7 line 40-col. 8 line 19 80% confidence that user’s right hand touched. Values might also run from 0 to 1.0, where 0 indicates left handedness, 1.0 represents right handedness, and anything in-between is representative of the probability of being in the right hand or left hand. ; and
responsive to the classified handedness, display a graphical user interface element partially obscured particular hand of the user by which the first touch-based input was applied fig. 5e-f in response to detected left hand the menu 542 is displayed closer to the thumb.

Dillon does not disclose unobscured by the particular hand of the user.
Sleeman however discloses unobscured by the particular hand of the user see fig. 14A 14B [0145] responsive to detecting and classifying right hand the user selectable options 16 are displayed to the left of the thumb and in response detecting and classifying the left hand the user selectable options 16 are displayed to the right of the thumb.
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 computing device of Dillon to include unobscured by the particular hand of the user, as taught by Sleeman, to enable a better user interaction with the computing device.

Dillon as modified by Sleeman does not disclose generate a score based on a tilt angle of the contact instrument with respect to touch interface and an azimuth of the contract instrument.
Kim however discloses based on a tilt angle of the contact instrument with respect to touch interface and an azimuth of the contract instrument see fig. 50 [0465] left and right handedness is determined based on tilt angle and azimuth.
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 computing device of Dillon as modified by Sleeman to include based on a tilt angle of the contact instrument with respect to touch interface and an azimuth of the contract instrument, as taught by Kim, to enable the interface to accommodate both right handed and left handed users.

Consider claim 2. Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein to classify a handedness, the program code is further structured to:
classify the first touch-based input as from a left hand of the user Dillon col. 7 line 40-col. 8 line 19. Values might also run from 0 to 1.0, where 0 indicates left handedness, 1.0 represents right handedness, and anything in-between is representative of the probability of being in the right hand or left hand.

Consider claim 3. Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim discloses the computing device of claim 2, wherein to display a graphical user interface element unobscured by the particular hand of the user by which the first touch-based input was applied, the program code is further structured to:
display the graphical user interface element to the right of a location at which the contact instrument provides the first touch-based input to the touch interface Sleeman fig. 14B.
Motivation to combine is similar to motivation in claim 1.

Consider claim 4. Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein to classify a handedness, the program code is further structured to:
classify the first touch-based input as from the right hand of the user Dillon col. 7 line 40-col. 8 line 19 80% confidence that user’s right hand touched. Values might also run from 0 to 1.0, where 0 indicates left handedness, 1.0 represents right handedness, and anything in-between is representative of the probability of being in the right hand or left hand.

Consider claim 5. Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim discloses the computing device of claim 4, wherein to display a graphical user interface element unobscured by the particular hand of the user by which the first touch-based input was applied, the program code is further structured to:
display the graphical user interface element to the left of a location at which the contact instrument provides the first touch-based input to the touch interface Sleeman fig. 14A.
Motivation to combine is similar to motivation in claim 1.

Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 5.

2. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon et al. US 10082936 in view of Sleeman et al. US 20100289754 in view of Kim and further in view of Hinckley et al. US 20120262407.

Consider claim 6. Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim discloses the computing device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the program code is further structured to: reject a second touch-based input, received by the touch interface, corresponding to a portion of the particular hand of the user applied to the touch interface while the first touch-based input is received.

Hinckley however discloses reject a second touch-based input, received by the touch interface, corresponding to a portion of the particular hand of the user applied to the touch interface while the first touch-based input is received see fig. 4 fig. 5 [0129-0130] where the region of the touch screen with the hand portion is ignored.
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 computing device of Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim to include unobscured by the particular hand of the user, as taught by Hinckley, to allow the user to rest her hand on the input surface with one finger extended to provide valid finger-touch input with that same hand. These capabilities enable the Contact Discriminator to determine whether a wide variety of touch or contacts are valid relative to other concurrent invalid contacts [0125].

Claim 14 is rejected for similar reason to claim 6.

3. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon et al. US 10082936 in view of Sleeman et al. US 20100289754 in view of Kim and further in view of Chen US 11126283.

Consider claim 8. Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim discloses the computing device of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein to generate a score, the program code is further structured to: generate the score based at least on at least one of: a first location of the touch interface at which the first touch-based input was applied by the contact instrument; a second location of the touch interface at which a touch blob was detected by the touch interface corresponding to a portion of the particular hand of the user applied to the touch interface while receiving the first touch-based input; an angle at which the contact instrument is positioned with respect to the first location and the second location;
Chen however discloses generate the score based at least on at least one of: a first location of the touch interface at which the first touch-based input was applied by the contact instrument col. 40 lines 28-67 fig. 5-8 probability of right or left hand touch is determined based on contact ; a second location of the touch interface at which a touch blob was detected by the touch interface corresponding to a portion of the particular hand of the user applied to the touch interface while receiving the first touch-based input; an angle at which the contact instrument is positioned with respect to the first location and the second location;
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 computing device of Dillon as modified by Sleeman and Kim to include generate the score based at least on at least one of: a first location of the touch interface at which the first touch-based input was applied by the contact instrument, as taught by Chen, to enable the detection of various touch gestures, performed with different hands, accurately (col. 40 lines 28-67).

Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 8.

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS

Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the features of the amended claims.

The Office agrees and has accordingly updated the rejection to address the newly added limitations.
V. CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imoto et al. US 20150234517 discloses using tilt and azimuth in determining stroke information

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 IBRAHIM A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7998. The examiner can normally be reached on 10am-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, LunYi Lao can be reached on 5712727671. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

IBRAHIM A. KHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2692

/IBRAHIM A KHAN/ 05/07/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692