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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120311493 A1 (Timothy Youngjin Sohn, hereinafter Sohn) in view of US 20180242242 A1 (Lee eta al., hereinafter Lee) and further in view of US 10129395 B1 (Maxwell et al., hereinafter Maxwell).
Regarding claim 1, Sohn discloses a method (par. [0001]) comprising:
determining, by one or more processors (Fig. 1, “processor 20”) of a computing device (Fig. 1, “mobile terminal 10”), a change in a status of the computing device (par. [0026], “Notifications may be generated…”; par. [0066], “…the notification may be a statement presented to the user regarding a status change or event, as described above (e.g., "1 new text message" as opposed to the actual message received)…”);
determining, by the one or more processors of the computing device and based on the change in the status, a visual notification (par. [0026], “Notifications may be generated…”; par. [0066], “…the notification may be a statement presented to the user regarding a status change or event, as described above (e.g., "1 new text message" as opposed to the actual message received)…”); and
interfacing, by the one or more processors of the computing device, with a perimeter of a display (Fig. 1, please see the interfacing connection of the processor with the display; Fig. 3A, display region 102, 104 106 and/or 108) of the computing device to output, based on the visual notification, a pattern of light (Figs. 3A-7A, par. [0057]).
Although implied, Sohn does not specifically disclose where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds a central display of the communication device, wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display, wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device.
In related art concerning a device and controlling method, Lee discloses where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds a central display of the communication device, wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display (Figs. 16A-D and pars. [0220]-[0224], “user interface 20”), wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device (pars. [0056], “the user interface 20 may be displayed along an edge region of the display 10. The edge region may correspond to one part of the display 10…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lee’s teachings where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surround more than 50 percent of a central display of the computing device, wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display that surrounds the central display corresponds to a mere design consideration available to the inventor. Where having a pattern of light that includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with contiguous pixels might allow a device to provide a more visible alert to the user when the pixels are activated/illuminated. Also, Having the notification portion being part of the display as a unit corresponds to design consideration that simplifies the design. Since additional physical device parts are not needed, the design is simplified and aesthetics of the device are improving, among others.
Although implicit , as shown above, the examiner is introducing the reference Maxwell that discloses where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display (Figs 5 and 10 a display comprised of a central portion 502a and a peripheral portion 502b that illuminates in its entirety during a visual notification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Maxwell’s teachings where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn and Lee because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display that surrounds the central display corresponds to a mere design consideration available to the inventor. Where having a pattern of light that includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with contiguous pixels might allow a device to provide a more visible alert to the user when the pixels are activated/illuminated. Also, Having the notification portion being part of the display as a unit corresponds to design consideration that simplifies the design. Since additional physical device parts are not needed, the design is simplified and aesthetics of the device are improving, among others.
Regarding claim 11, Sohn discloses a computing device (Fig. 1, “mobile terminal 10”) comprising:
One or more displays (Fig. 1, “display 28”) including a perimeter display (Fig. 3A, display region 102, 104 106 and/or 108 corresponding to “first portion”) and a central display (Fig. 3A and par. [0055], center portion of display 100), wherein the perimeter display includes a substantial portion of a perimeter of the one or more displays (Figs. 3B-4, 5B-7A and par. [0063], “Each display region 102, 104, 106, 108 may be configurable by a user to present indications of notifications associated with a particular application or group of applications”) and excludes the central display (Figs. 3-7, the perimeter portion(s) of the display exclude the central portion of the display);
one or more processors (Fig. 1, “processor 20”) configured to:
determine a change in a status of the computing device (par. [0026], “Notifications may be generated…”; par. [0066], “…the notification may be a statement presented to the user regarding a status change or event, as described above (e.g., "1 new text message" as opposed to the actual message received)…”);
determine, based on the change in the status, a visual notification (pars. [0026], [0057] and [0066], “straight line (indication 115) to represent the lack of notifications and a pulse line (indication 112) to represent the presence of a notification…”); and
interface with the perimeter display to output, based on the visual notification, a pattern of light (pars. [0026] and [0057], “straight line (indication 115) to represent the lack of notifications and a pulse line (indication 112) to represent the presence of a notification…”).
Although implied, Sohn does not specifically disclose where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds a central display of the communication device, wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display, wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device.
Lee discloses where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display (Figs. 16A-D and pars. [0220]-[0224], “user interface 20”), wherein the perimeter display and the
central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device (pars. [0056], “the user interface 20 may be displayed along an edge region of the display 10. The edge region may correspond to one part of the display 10…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lee’s teachings where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surround more than 50 percent of a central display of the computing device, wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display that surrounds the central display corresponds to a mere design consideration available to the inventor. Where having all the pixels of the perimeter display might allow a device to provide a more visible alert to the user when the pixels are activated/illuminated. Also, Having the notification portion being part of the display as a unit corresponds to design consideration that simplifies the design. Since additional physical device parts are not needed, the design is simplified and aesthetics of the device are improving, among others.
Although implicit , as shown above, the examiner is introducing the reference Maxwell that discloses where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display (Figs 5 and 10 a display comprised of a central portion 502a and a peripheral portion 502b that illuminates in its entirety during a visual notification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Maxwell’s teachings where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn and Lee because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display that surrounds the central display corresponds to a mere design consideration available to the inventor. Where having a pattern of light that includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with contiguous pixels might allow a device to provide a more visible alert to the user when the pixels are activated/illuminated. Also, Having the notification portion being part of the display as a unit corresponds to design consideration that simplifies the design. Since additional physical device parts are not needed, the design is simplified and aesthetics of the device are improving, among others.
Regarding claim 20, Sohn discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 1 and pars. [0032], [0034], “non-volatile memory 42…”) having stored thereon instructions (par. [0032], “software programs”) that, when executed, cause one or more processors (Fig. 1 and par. [0032], “processor 20”) of a computing device (Fig. 1, “mobile terminal 10”)to:
determine a change in a status of the computing device (par. [0026], “Notifications may be generated…”; par. [0066], “…the notification may be a statement presented to the user regarding a status change or event, as described above (e.g., "1 new text message" as opposed to the actual message received)…”);
determine, based on the change in the status, a visual notification (par. [0026], “Notifications may be generated…”; par. [0066], “…the notification may be a statement presented to the user regarding a status change or event, as described above (e.g., "1 new text message" as opposed to the actual message received)…”); and
interface with a perimeter display of the computing device to output (Fig. 1, please see the interfacing connection of the processor with the display; Fig. 3A, display region 102, 104 106 and/or 108), based on the visual notification, a pattern of light (pars. [0026] and [0057], “straight line (indication 115).
Although implied, Sohn does not specifically disclose where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that that surrounds a central display of the communication device, wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display, wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device.
Lee discloses where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds a central display of the communication device, wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display (Figs. 16A-D and pars. [0220]-[0224], “user interface 20”), wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device (pars. [0056], “the user interface 20 may be displayed along an edge region of the display 10. The edge region may correspond to one part of the display 10…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lee’s teachings where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surround more than 50 percent of a central display of the computing device, wherein the perimeter display and the central display are different portions of a single display integrated into the computing device with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display that surrounds the central display corresponds to a mere design consideration available to the inventor. Where having all the pixels of the perimeter display might allow a device to provide a more visible alert to the user when the pixels are activated/illuminated. Also, Having the notification portion being part of the display as a unit corresponds to design consideration that simplifies the design. Since additional physical device parts are not needed, the design is simplified and aesthetics of the device are improving, among others.
Although implicit , as shown above, the examiner is introducing the reference Maxwell that discloses where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display (Figs 5 and 10 a display comprised of a central portion 502a and a peripheral portion 502b that illuminates in its entirety during a visual notification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Maxwell’s teachings where the perimeter display being a band of contiguous pixels that surrounds wherein the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn and Lee because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pattern of light includes all the pixels of the perimeter display that surrounds the central display corresponds to a mere design consideration available to the inventor. Where having a pattern of light that includes all the pixels of the perimeter display with contiguous pixels might allow a device to provide a more visible alert to the user when the pixels are activated/illuminated. Also, Having the notification portion being part of the display as a unit corresponds to design consideration that simplifies the design. Since additional physical device parts are not needed, the design is simplified and aesthetics of the device are improving, among others.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sohn, Lee and Maxwell disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Sohn further discloses comprising detecting a user input (pars. [0047]-[0048] and [0051]),
wherein determining the change in the status of the computing device comprises determining, based on the user input, the change in the status of the computing device (pars. [0048] and par. [0064], “associated application or group of applications may change depending on the underlying application with which the user is interacting. …”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Sohn, Lee and Maxwell disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Sohn further discloses detecting that a wireless connection to a different device is available, wherein determining the change in the status comprises determining that the wireless connection to the different device is available (par. [0033], where a change from one wireless system to another is determined and communicated automatically. When the device is operating based on a cellular network type of communication, an available WLAN network is communicated/indicated/signaled to the device/user and vice versa).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn in view of Lee and Maxwell, and further in view of KR 20140143685 A (Lee eta al., hereinafter KR-Lee).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sohn, Lee and Maxwell disclose all the limitations of claims 3 and 13, respectively. Sohn further discloses,
Sohn does not specifically disclose determining a direction of the different device relative to the computing device,
wherein determining the visual notification includes determining a directional visual notification that indicates the direction of the different device relative to the computing device, and
wherein interfacing with the perimeter display comprises interfacing with the perimeter of the display to output, based on the directional visual notification, the pattern of light to indicate the direction of the different device relative to the computing device.
In related art concerning a method for displaying visual effect of a portable terminal, KR-Lee discloses
wherein determining the visual notification includes determining a directional visual notification that indicates the direction of the different device relative to the computing device (Figs. 11-12 and par. [0051], “the direction of the peripheral device is determined based on the detected location of the mobile terminal device and the received location information of the peripheral device. …”), and
wherein interfacing with the first portion of the display comprises interfacing with the first portion of the display to output, based on the directional visual notification, the pattern of light to indicate the direction of the different device relative to the computing device (Figs. 11-13 and par. [0051], “the direction in which the confirmed peripheral device is located may be a preset point on the screen of the mobile terminal device, for example, a preset position (any point) on the screen in the same direction as the direction in which the peripheral device…an object in the form of light spreading out based on the identified location on the screen is displayed on the screen the position on the screen corresponding to the direction in which the confirmed peripheral device is located…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use KR-Lee’s teachings about determining the visual notification includes determining a directional visual illuminated notification that indicates the direction of the different device relative to the computing device with the state changes displayed at the perimeter display area of the device disclosed by Sohn, Kim and Maxwell because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that determining and displaying the direction of the wirelessly connected device on the screen of the device with the illuminated visual indication in the direction of the located neighboring device would make it easier for a user to identify the direction of a located external device in a non-intrusive or uninterrupted manner while the user is using the central portion of the display for a different task/function.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Sohn, Lee, Maxwell and KR-Lee disclose all the limitations of claims 4 and 14, respectively. Sohn further discloses,
Sohn does not specifically disclose where in the directional visual notification includes a proximity visual notification that indicates a relative distance between the different device and the computing device.
KR-Lee further disclose where in the directional visual notification includes a proximity visual notification that indicates a relative distance between the different device and the computing device (Figs. 11-12 and par. [0031], “a position detection sensor (172) that determines the position (distance and direction) of a peripheral device…”; par. [0051], “the position on the screen corresponding to the direction in which the confirmed peripheral device is located may be a preset point on the screen of the mobile terminal device, for example, a preset position (any point) on the screen in the same direction as the direction in which the peripheral device is located”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use KR-Lee’s teachings where in the directional visual notification includes a proximity visual notification that indicates a relative distance between the different device and the computing device with the method and apparatus for spatially indicating notifications disclosed by Sohn, Lee and Maxwell because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that determining the presence and distance of an external device in relation with a user’s device using a sensor is a well-recognized techniques used in short range detection that allows a user or a user’s device to make a determination about making a connection with an external device based on the relative location between the devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 11-15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Angelica Perez whose telephone number is 571-272-7885. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
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 the PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the Private PAIR only. For more information about the pair system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). Information regarding Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system can be found at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2600's customer service number is 703-306-0377.
/Angelica M. Perez/
Primary Examiner AU 2649
Prosecution Insights