DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 2 lines 1-3 recites "wherein the processor is configured to detect the pick-up state in response to the device being in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, and a second flat orientation." It is not clear from the claim if all of these conditions and orientations need to be true for a pick-up state to be detected (i.e., does the device need to be in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, and a second flat orientation at the same time?). Or is the claim merely defining a list of all of the individual conditions/orientations in isolation that would result in a pick-up state being detected (i.e., is the device considered to be in a pick-up state if a stationary condition is true, or a first flat orientation is true, or a high motion condition is true, or a second flat orientation is true?). If the applicant intends for all of these conditions and orientations to be true, then there needs to be claim language defining that a sequence for all of these conditions and orientations to have occurred in order for there not be any contradictions (e.g., how can a device be both stationary and high motion?). If the applicant intends for any one of these conditions/orientations out of a list to be true in order for a pick-up state to be detected, then additional clarification will be needed to explain how a pick-up state can be detected from individually contrasting conditions (such as stationary vs. high motion). Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
b) Claim 9 lines 1-3 recites "wherein the processor is configured to detect the pick-up state in response to the device being in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, a second flat orientation, and the first portion being in the first position." It is not clear from the claim if all of these conditions and orientations need to be true for a pick-up state to be detected (i.e., does the device need to be in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, and a second flat orientation at the same time?). Or is the claim merely defining a list of all of the individual conditions/orientations in isolation that would result in a pick-up state being detected (i.e., is the device considered to be in a pick-up state if a stationary condition is true, or a first flat orientation is true, or a high motion condition is true, or a second flat orientation is true, or the first portion being in the first position is true?). If the applicant intends for all of these conditions and orientations to be true, then there needs to be claim language defining that a sequence for all of these conditions and orientations to have occurred in order for there not be any contradictions (e.g., how can a device be both stationary and high motion?). If the applicant intends for any one of these conditions/orientations out of a list to be true in order for a pick-up state to be detected, then additional clarification will be needed to explain how a pick-up state can be detected from individually contrasting conditions (such as stationary vs. high motion). Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
c) Claim 11 lines 1-3 recites "wherein the processor is configured to detect the pick-up state in response to the device being in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, a second flat orientation, and the first portion being in the second position." It is not clear from the claim if all of these conditions and orientations need to be true for a pick-up state to be detected (i.e., does the device need to be in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, and a second flat orientation at the same time?). Or is the claim merely defining a list of all of the individual conditions/orientations in isolation that would result in a pick-up state being detected (i.e., is the device considered to be in a pick-up state if a stationary condition is true, or a first flat orientation is true, or a high motion condition is true, or a second flat orientation is true, or the first portion being in the second position is true?). If the applicant intends for all of these conditions and orientations to be true, then there needs to be claim language defining that a sequence for all of these conditions and orientations to have occurred in order for there not be any contradictions (e.g., how can a device be both stationary and high motion?). If the applicant intends for any one of these conditions/orientations out of a list to be true in order for a pick-up state to be detected, then additional clarification will be needed to explain how a pick-up state can be detected from individually contrasting conditions (such as stationary vs. high motion). Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
d) Claim 17 lines 6-7 recites "detecting the pick-up state in response to the device being in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation." It is not clear from the claim if all of these conditions and orientations need to be true for a pick-up state to be detected (i.e., does the device need to be in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation at the same time?). Or is the claim merely defining a list of all of the individual conditions/orientations in isolation that would result in a pick-up state being detected (i.e., is the device considered to be in a pick-up state if a stationary condition is true, or a first flat orientation is true, or a high motion condition is true, or a second flat orientation is true?). If the applicant intends for all of these conditions and orientations to be true, then there needs to be claim language defining that a sequence for all of these conditions and orientations to have occurred in order for there not be any contradictions (e.g., how can a device be both stationary and high motion?). If the applicant intends for any one of these conditions/orientations out of a list to be true in order for a pick-up state to be detected, then additional clarification will be needed to explain how a pick-up state can be detected from individually contrasting conditions (such as stationary vs. high motion). Claim 18 appears to resolve this ambiguity, but claim 17 when read by itself is indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
e) Claim 19 lines 11-13 recites "detecting a pick-up state of the device in response to the device being in a stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation…". It is not clear from the claim if all of these conditions and orientations need to be true for a pick-up state to be detected (i.e., does the device need to be in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation at the same time?). Or is the claim merely defining a list of all of the individual conditions/orientations in isolation that would result in a pick-up state being detected (i.e., is the device considered to be in a pick-up state if a stationary condition is true, or a first flat orientation is true, or a high motion condition is true, or a second flat orientation is true?). If the applicant intends for all of these conditions and orientations to be true, then there needs to be claim language defining that a sequence for all of these conditions and orientations to have occurred in order for there not be any contradictions (e.g., how can a device be both stationary and high motion?). If the applicant intends for any one of these conditions/orientations out of a list to be true in order for a pick-up state to be detected, then additional clarification will be needed to explain how a pick-up state can be detected from individually contrasting conditions (such as stationary vs. high motion). Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
3. Dependent claims 3-8 depend from claim 2 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2. Dependent claim 10 depends from claim 9 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 9. Dependent claim 12 depends from claim 11 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 11. Dependent claim 20 depends from claim 19 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-15 are to a machine, claims 16-18 are to a process, and claims 19-20 are to a process. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A device, comprising:
a first portion including an accelerometer configured to measure accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis;
a second portion coupled to the first portion, the first portion configured to move in to a first position in which a side of the first portion faces a side of the second portion and in to a second position in which the side of the first portion and the side of the second portion face in opposite directions; and
a processor configured to detect a pick-up state based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes, the pick-up state being detected in case where the device is in a flat orientation and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat orientation.
16. A method, comprising:
measuring, by an accelerometer of a device, accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis, the device including a first portion having the accelerometer and a second portion coupled to the first portion; and
detecting, by the device, a pick-up state based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes, the pick-up state being detected in case where the device is in a flat orientation and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat orientation.
19. A method, comprising:
measuring accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis;
detecting a device is in a stationary condition based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes;
detecting the device is in a first flat orientation based on the acceleration along the third axis;
detecting the device is in a high motion condition based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes;
detecting the device is in a second flat orientation based on the acceleration along the third axis; and
detecting a pick-up state of the device in response to detecting the device is in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation, the device being lifted in the pick-up state.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The limitations “to detect a pick-up state based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes, the pick-up state being detected in case where the device is in a flat orientation and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat orientation," amounts to a mental process step in its simplest form to compare accelerations along the three axes to a profile to determine a pick-up state, or a mathematical concept when the processing of the accelerations requires a more complex numerical analysis to solve for a transition in orientations from a flat orientation to a pick-up state. Similarly, the limitations of "detecting a device is in a stationary condition based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes," "detecting the device is in a first flat orientation based on the acceleration along the third axis," "detecting the device is in a high motion condition based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes," "detecting the device is in a second flat orientation based on the acceleration along the third axis," and "detecting a pick-up state of the device in response to detecting the device is in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation, the device being lifted in the pick-up state," amount to a mental process to compare the measured accelerations to known profiles to determine an orientation or condition, or mathematical calculations when the processing of the accelerations acquires a more complex numerical analysis to solve for an orientation or condition.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the limitations of "a first portion including an accelerometer configured to measure accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis," "measuring, by an accelerometer of a device, accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis, the device including a first portion having the accelerometer and a second portion coupled to the first portion," and "measuring accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis," amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and (2) the limitations of the processor or device configured to detect the pick-up state, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 contains limitations of "a second portion coupled to the first portion, the first portion configured to move in to a first position in which a side of the first portion faces a side of the second portion and in to a second position in which the side of the first portion and the side of the second portion face in opposite directions," which amounts to an integration into a practical application because the specificity of the physical structural details describe the applying of the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Claim 20 includes similar structural limitations, and thus also contains patent eligible subject matter. The subject matter eligibility analysis thus concludes for claims 1 and dependent claims 2-15 and 20, but the analysis continues for claims 16-19.
Next in step 2B, the remaining independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The limitations of measuring by an accelerometer of a device, accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis, do not add something significantly more because they amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way. The recitations of the device for detecting a pick-up state does not add something significantly more because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 17-18 contain additional limitations that fall under the grouping of a mental process or mathematical calculations, as the limitations in these claims define further data evaluations/calculation steps in order to categorize the types of orientations and motion conditions.
5. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the measurement data, or further physical applications using the calculated detection of a pick-up state to drive a transformation, change in operation, or update/maintenance to a machine or technical process, could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692, hereinafter "Wehrenberg").
In regards to claim 16, Wehrenberg teaches a method (Wehrenberg abstract and paragraph [0042] teaches a method), comprising:
measuring, by an accelerometer of a device, accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis (Wehrenberg abstract and paragraphs [0050]-[0051] teach an accelerometer attached to a first portion of a portable device, such as a motherboard base section of the device, where the accelerometer has X, Y, and Z axes for measuring accelerations along a first x axis, a second y axis transverse to the first axis, and a third z axis transverse to the first and second axes), the device including a first portion having the accelerometer and a second portion coupled to the first portion (Wehrenberg Fig. 5B and paragraph [0123] teach a lid as a second portion coupled to the first portion motherboard base); and
detecting, by the device, a pick-up state based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes, the pick-up state being detected in case where the device is in a flat orientation and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat orientation (Wehrenberg paragraphs [0123] and [0125] teach detecting, by processing logic of the device, the pick-up state in the case where the laptop portable device is closed (in a flat orientation) and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat closed orientation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692, hereinafter "Wehrenberg") as modified by Yu et al. (US Pat. No. 10,945,087, hereinafter "Yu").
In regards to claim 1, Wehrenberg teaches a device (Wehrenberg abstract and paragraph [0042] teach a portable device, such as a laptop computer), comprising:
a first portion including an accelerometer configured to measure accelerations along a first axis, a second axis transverse to the first axis, and a third axis transverse to the first axis and the second axis (Wehrenberg abstract and paragraphs [0050]-[0051] teach an accelerometer attached to a first portion of the portable device, such as a motherboard base section of the device, where the accelerometer has X, Y, and Z axes for measuring accelerations along a first x axis, a second y axis transverse to the first axis, and a third z axis transverse to the first and second axes);
a second portion coupled to the first portion, the first portion configured to move in to a first position in which a side of the first portion faces a side of the second portion (Wehrenberg Fig. 5B and paragraph [0123] teach a lid as a second portion coupled to the first portion motherboard base, where the first portion at the base is configured to move into a closed position with the second portion lid in which a side of the first portion faces a side of the second portion); and
a processor configured to detect a pick-up state based on the accelerations along the first, second, and third axes (Wehrenberg paragraph [0106] teaches a controller (processor) configured to detect a pick-up state based on the measured acceleration movement data provided by the accelerometer), the pick-up state being detected in case where the device is in a flat orientation and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat orientation (Wehrenberg paragraphs [0123] and [0125] teach detecting the pick-up state in the case where the laptop portable device is closed (in a flat orientation) and subsequently picked up and carried by a user in the flat closed orientation). Wehrenberg fails to expressly teach the first portion configured to move in to a second position in which the side of the first portion and the side of the second portion face in opposite directions. Yu col. 1 lines 6-23 and col. 2 lines 46-49 teach where electronic devices such as laptop personal computers are offered in many form factors, including a convertible device which typically includes two more components that are hingedly attached such that they may be converted to multiple different physical orientations or configurations, such as a tent mode or tablet mode. Yu Fig. 4B and col. 3 lines 24-29 teach where in tablet mode, a first portion and a connected side of the second portion (such as a connected screen) are rotated to face in opposite directions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Yu to specify where the device has a second position in which the first portion and the second portion face opposite directions, as laptop computers are known in the industry to be convertible between different usage positions. Therefore, it would only be a matter of ordinary skill in the art to specify including a tablet mode type configuration where the first portion and a second connected portion face in opposite directions in a portable laptop device, as a laptop can take on multiple known configurations.
In regards to claim 13, Wehrenberg teaches the device, further comprising:
a multi-sensor in the first portion, the multi-sensor including the accelerometer and the processor (Wehrenberg paragraph [0050] teaches one or more accelerometers as a multi-sensor in the first portion of the motherboard, the multi-sensor including the accelerometer and the controller (processor) coupled to the accelerometer).
In regards to claim 15, Wehrenberg teaches the device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wehrenberg fails to expressly teach wherein the first and second portions are configured to move in to an operation mode of a plurality of operation modes including a clamshell mode, a closed mode, a tablet mode, a tent mode, and a stand mode.
Yu col. 1 lines 6-23, col. 2 lines 46-49, and col. 5 lines 58-64 teach where electronic devices such as laptop personal computers are offered in many form factors, including a convertible device which typically includes two more components that are hingedly attached such that they may be converted to multiple different physical orientations or configurations, such as a clamshell mode, closed mode, tablet mode, tent mode, and stand mode.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Yu to specify where the laptop portable device has first and second portions configured to move in to an operation mode of a plurality of modes, as laptop computers are known in the industry to include a convertible device that allows for various configurations of the first and second portions between different usage positions. Therefore, it would only be a matter of ordinary skill in the art to specify including well known laptop mode usage conditions, such as clamshell, closed mode, tablet, etc.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692, hereinafter "Wehrenberg") as modified by Yu et al. (US Pat. No. 10,945,087, hereinafter "Yu") as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Roberts-Hoffman (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0168631).
In regards to claim 14, Wehrenberg teaches the device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wehrenberg fails to expressly teach wherein the first portion includes a monitor, and the second portion includes user inputs.
Roberts-Hoffman paragraph [0010] teaches where a mode sensor can include a first accelerometer in one of the base portion and a second accelerometer in the display, where the accelerometers are configured to determine the mode of the computing device based on a comparison of acceleration directions detected by the first and second accelerometers. Roberts-Hoffman paragraph [0002] defines the base portion as having a physical keyboard to receive human user inputs.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Roberts-Hoffman to define the first portion as a display (monitor) portion that includes an accelerometer, as Wehrenberg only provides the attachment of the accelerometer to the motherboard merely as an example, as the accelerometer may be integrated with another component of the portable device (see Wehrenberg paragraph [0050]). Therefore, it would be a simple substitution of defining the first portion as having the monitor and an accelerometer, as Wehrenberg does not limit the placement of where the accelerometer is attached, and the use of an accelerometer in the monitor in connection to an accelerometer in the keyboard base portion provides the benefit of determining the mode of the computing device relative to each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action. Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692) fails to anticipate or render obvious the device wherein the processor is configured to detect the pick-up state in response to the device being in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, and a second flat orientation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692) fails to anticipate or render obvious the device wherein the processor is configured to detect the pick-up state in response to the device being in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, a second flat orientation, and the first portion being in the first position, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692) fails to anticipate or render obvious the device wherein the processor is configured to detect the pick-up state in response to the device being in a stationary condition, a first flat orientation, a high motion condition, a second flat orientation, and the first portion being in the second position, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692) fails to anticipate or render obvious the method, further comprising: detecting the pick-up state in response to the device being in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wehrenberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0017692) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method, comprising: detecting a pick-up state of the device in response to detecting the device is in the stationary condition, the first flat orientation, the high motion condition, and the second flat orientation, the device being lifted in the pick-up state, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
13. Dependent claims 3-8 depend from claim 2 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2 above. Dependent claim 10 depends from claim 9 and contains allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 9 above. Dependent claim 12 depends from claim 11 and contains allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 11 above. Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and contains allowable subject matter for at least the the same reasons as given for claim 17 above. Dependent claim 20 depends from claim 19 and contains allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 19 above.
Pertinent Art
14. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Iyer et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0326767) discloses Preventing False Wake Events from a Low-Power State. C. Kahn et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0085203) discloses a Method and System for Waking Up a device Due to Motion. D. Perelli et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0188773) discloses Multiple Display Device. E. Chng et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2016/0147266) discloses Detecting an Operating Mode of a Computing Device Using Accelerometers.
F. Krancher et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0161042) discloses Hinged Device With Multiple Accelerometers.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 12/31/2025