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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20130328825, hereinafter “Brown”), and further in view of Crettella, JR et al. (US 20120072167, hereinafter “Crettlla”)
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses,
An electronic device (FIG. 2A-2B show perspective views of the electronic device in the form of a tablet device and the accessory device in the form of a protective cover) comprising:
a magnetic sensor (that magnetic elements 22 can affect magnetically sensitive circuits such as Hall Effect sensor 24 and magnetometer circuit 26 in the form of onboard compass 26);
communication circuitry (The electronic device 1500 also includes a network/bus interface 1611 that couples to a data link 1612. The data link 1612 allows the electronic device 1500 to couple to a host computer or to accessory devices…the network/bus interface 1611 can include a wireless transceiver, [0102]);
at least one processor (Fig. 16; 1602) operatively connected with the magnetic sensor and the communication circuitry (see, Fig. 16), and
memory storing instructions (Fig. 16; 1620; 1622) that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
identify that a magnetic signal is detected through the magnetic sensor (A linear Hall Effect sensor can be used to sense the motion, position, or change in field strength of a magnet. Differences in the magnetic field strength detected by the linear Hall Effect sensor can be used to evaluate a current status of the protective cover with respect to the tablet device, [0034]-[0035]);
identify, based on a magnitude of the detected magnetic signal, whether the magnetic signal is generated by coupling the electronic device with a cover device (Differences in the magnetic field strength detected by the linear Hall Effect sensor can be used to evaluate a current status of the protective cover with respect to the tablet device. For example, a change in detected magnetic field strength value can indicate that a change in the tablet device/protective cover attachment status has changed or that a relative distance between the magnet and the linear Hall Effect sensor has changed. This change in relative distance can indicate that the protective cover has moved relative to the tablet device. For example, a linear Hall Effect sensor measuring a relative change in magnetic field strength value of 5 milli-Tesla (mT) can indicate that the protective cover has moved to a more open position or a more closed position relative to the tablet device, [0035]-[0038]). However, Brown does not explicitly disclose, in response to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal is being indicated as the magnetic signal generated by coupling the electronic device with the cover device, correct sensor data of the magnetic sensor using correction data corresponding to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal.
in response to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal is being indicated as the magnetic signal generated by coupling the electronic device with the cover device (when the cover is going from the open to closed configuration, the dynamic offset at the onboard compass can increase due to the fact that the magnetic elements within the protective cover are moving closer to the magnetometer and are therefore inducing a greater offset value in the readings of the onboard compass (of course, just the opposite occurs when the cover status changes from closed to open), [0046]), correct sensor data of the magnetic sensor using correction data corresponding to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal (In order to compensate for the offset induced by the motion of the protective cover (more specifically the magnetic elements in the protective cover), the onboard compass can utilize a model of the maximum change in magnetic field magnitude that the onboard compass can detect as a function of change in cover position. In this way, by using both the model of the maximum change in magnetic field magnitude as a function of cover position and a current estimate of the magnitude of the horizontal component of the external magnetic field, the electronic device can estimate a maximum change in compass heading likely to be induced by the relative change in position of the protective cover in relation to the electronic device, [0046]-[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brown by specifically providing in response to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal is being indicated as the magnetic signal generated by coupling the electronic device with the cover device, correct sensor data of the magnetic sensor using correction data corresponding to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal, as taught by Cretella for the purpose of providing an accurate and reliable techniques for determining a current status of an accessory device in relation to an electronic device [0005].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Brown and Cretella discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Cretella discloses,
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform an operation based on the corrected sensor data (In order to compensate for the offset induced by the motion of the protective cover (more specifically the magnetic elements in the protective cover), the onboard compass can utilize a model of the maximum change in magnetic field magnitude that the onboard compass can detect as a function of change in cover position. In this way, by using both the model of the maximum change in magnetic field magnitude as a function of cover position and a current estimate of the magnitude of the horizontal component of the external magnetic field, the electronic device can estimate a maximum change in compass heading likely to be induced by the relative change in position of the protective cover in relation to the electronic device, [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Brown and Cretella discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), in addition Cretella discloses,
wherein the operation based on the corrected sensor data comprises execution of an application based on a position and a posture of the electronic device ( the relative displacement of the flap and the electronic device can be deduced from data received in real time from an accelerometer and gyroscope. The data from the accelerometer and gyroscope can be related to the spatial orientation of the electronic device [0035]; an accelerometer and gyroscope incorporated within the electronic device can be used in conjunction with the compass to evaluate a dynamic magnetic signature of changes in detected external magnetic field, [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Brown and Cretella discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Cretella discloses,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, based on identifying that the magnetic signal is generated by coupling with the cover device, display a screen theme based on identification information of the cover device on the display (when the electronic device includes a display, the protective cover can be used to cover the display and therefore render it unviewable and therefore the display can be disabled. On the other hand, when the portion of the protective cover having the magnetic element is removed to the point where the HFX sensor no longer responds to the magnetic field of the magnetic element, then the HFX sensor can generate another signal. The other signal can result in the electronic device entering another, different, operating state consistent with at least a portion of the display being uncovered and viewable and therefore enabled for displaying visual content, [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Brown and Cretella discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Cretella discloses,
wherein the magnetic sensor is mounted at a position spaced a predetermined distance apart from a position corresponding to a magnet mounted on the cover device (The magnetic element can be positioned on the protective cover in a location that triggers the HFX sensor to generate the signal when the cover is placed on or in proximity to a surface of the electronic device. The signal can indicate that the protective cover is in a predetermined position relative to the electronic device that can result in a change in an operating state of the electronic device, [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Brown discloses,
A method for recognizing a cover device by an electronic device, the method comprising (FIG. 2A-2B show perspective views of the electronic device in the form of a tablet device and the accessory device in the form of a protective cover) comprising:
identifying that a magnetic signal is detected through the magnetic sensor (A linear Hall Effect sensor can be used to sense the motion, position, or change in field strength of a magnet. Differences in the magnetic field strength detected by the linear Hall Effect sensor can be used to evaluate a current status of the protective cover with respect to the tablet device, [0034]-[0035]);
identifying, based on a magnitude of the detected magnetic signal, whether the magnetic signal is generated by coupling the electronic device with a cover device (Differences in the magnetic field strength detected by the linear Hall Effect sensor can be used to evaluate a current status of the protective cover with respect to the tablet device. For example, a change in detected magnetic field strength value can indicate that a change in the tablet device/protective cover attachment status has changed or that a relative distance between the magnet and the linear Hall Effect sensor has changed. This change in relative distance can indicate that the protective cover has moved relative to the tablet device. For example, a linear Hall Effect sensor measuring a relative change in magnetic field strength value of 5 milli-Tesla (mT) can indicate that the protective cover has moved to a more open position or a more closed position relative to the tablet device, [0035]-[0038]). However, Brown does not explicitly disclose, in response to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal is being indicated as the magnetic signal generated by coupling the electronic device with the cover device, correct sensor data of the magnetic sensor using correction data corresponding to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal.
in response to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal is being indicated as the magnetic signal generated by coupling the electronic device with the cover device (when the cover is going from the open to closed configuration, the dynamic offset at the onboard compass can increase due to the fact that the magnetic elements within the protective cover are moving closer to the magnetometer and are therefore inducing a greater offset value in the readings of the onboard compass (of course, just the opposite occurs when the cover status changes from closed to open), [0046]), correct sensor data of the magnetic sensor using correction data corresponding to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal (In order to compensate for the offset induced by the motion of the protective cover (more specifically the magnetic elements in the protective cover), the onboard compass can utilize a model of the maximum change in magnetic field magnitude that the onboard compass can detect as a function of change in cover position. In this way, by using both the model of the maximum change in magnetic field magnitude as a function of cover position and a current estimate of the magnitude of the horizontal component of the external magnetic field, the electronic device can estimate a maximum change in compass heading likely to be induced by the relative change in position of the protective cover in relation to the electronic device, [0046]-[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brown by specifically providing in response to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal is being indicated as the magnetic signal generated by coupling the electronic device with the cover device, correct sensor data of the magnetic sensor using correction data corresponding to the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal, as taught by Cretella for the purpose of providing an accurate and reliable techniques for determining a current status of an accessory device in relation to an electronic device [0005].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brown and Cretella discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition Cretella discloses,
wherein the operation based on the corrected sensor data comprises execution of an application based on a position and a posture of the electronic device ( the relative displacement of the flap and the electronic device can be deduced from data received in real time from an accelerometer and gyroscope. The data from the accelerometer and gyroscope can be related to the spatial orientation of the electronic device [0035]; an accelerometer and gyroscope incorporated within the electronic device can be used in conjunction with the compass to evaluate a dynamic magnetic signature of changes in detected external magnetic field, [0048]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Brown and Cretella, does not disclose nor fairly suggest, “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: store correction data for each of a plurality of magnetic signal ranges in the memory, identify a range to which the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal belongs among the plurality of magnetic signal ranges, and correct the sensor data of the magnetic sensor based on correction data corresponding to the identified magnetic signal range”, in combination with the other limitations in claim 1.
Dependent claims 5 and 6 are allowed as those inherit the allowable subject matter from claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Brown and Cretella, does not disclose nor fairly suggest, “wherein the correcting the sensor data of the magnetic sensor comprises: identifying a range to which the magnitude of the detected magnetic signal belongs among a plurality of magnetic signal ranges; and correcting the sensor data of the magnetic sensor based on correction data corresponding to the identified magnetic signal range”, in combination with the other limitations in claim 10.
Dependent claims 13-15 are allowed as those inherit the allowable subject matter from claim 12.
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
US 9578766: A display terminal, an apparatus for cover opening detection, and a method of arranging a Hall sensor in a display terminal are provided. A display terminal includes a first body, and a Hall sensor disposed in the first body, the Hall sensor including a magnetic field sensing surface configured to sense a magnetic field, in which the magnetic field sensing surface is disposed at a slope with respect to an front surface of the first body.
US 9547336: A mobile terminal according to the present disclosure includes a body having a front surface and a rear surface, a display unit disposed on the front surface, a cover formed to allow at least part thereof to cover the front or rear surface, a window portion provided on the cover to expose at least part of the display unit in a state that the cover covers the front surface.
US 7637024: A magnetic field sensing device can be realized by using a magnetic sensor in electronic compassing as well as switching. A magnet can be brought in close proximity to the magnetic sensor within an electronic compass to generate a signal that a portable information device has been closed. This signal can be input to a processor or other circuitry to initiate a response to the portable information device being closed.
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 GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641