FINAL ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is FINAL.
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
The amendment filed on 7/21/2025.
Application filed on 9/29/2023 with effective filing date of 6/10/2016 based on parent application 15/421865 now US Patent 12175065, and provisional application 62/348843.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1, 4, 9-17 are amended.
Claims 18-19 are added.
The objection to claim 11 is respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim filed on 7/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 11, 4, 9-17, as well as additions of claim(s) 18-19 in the amendment filed on 7/21/2025.
The objection to claim 11 is respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim filed on 7/21/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly amended language which is now rejected in light of a new ground of rejection using newly cited art Roush (USPGPUB 20160341568).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 3/20/2025, 7/30/2025, 8/8/2025, 9/2/2025, 9/16/2026, 9/30/2025, 10/16/2025 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The specification filed on 7/21/2025 has been considered and approved by the Examiner.
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami (US Pat 6556222, from IDS, hereinafter Narayanaswami), in view of Roush (US Pub 20160341568, hereinafter Roush), and Richards et al. (US Pub 20150173631, hereinafter Richards).
Per claim 1, Narayanaswami teaches:
An electronic device, comprising: (col 3 line 58 – col 4 2: Fig. 1 shows wrist watch system 10);
a display; (col 3 line 65 - col 4 line 6, Fig. 1: wrist watch system 10 includes a base card 20 with a touch screen display);
one or more processors; and (col 4 line 15-20: Fig. 2 shows the wrist watch system 10 with base card 20 includes a CPU 55);
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (col 4 line 15-30: Fig. 2 shows the wrist watch system 10 with base card 20 includes memory 58-59);
displaying, on the display, a user interface, wherein displaying the user interface includes concurrently displaying: (col 9 line 52-65: Fig. 8A shows a user interface of the wrist watch system);
a first complication, wherein the first complication displays a (col 9 line 52-65: Fig. 8A shows a user interface of a wrist watch with different complications/application icons such as calendar, to-do list, etc. from the menu ring 302 shown in Fig. 4 and described in col 7 line 39-60; the examiner notes the term “complication” is interpreted according to filed specification ¶0376 as any clock face feature other than those used to indicate the hours and minutes of a time);
a clock face; (Fig. 8A shows a clock face);
while displaying the user interface:
detecting an input; and (col 9 line 52 – col 10 line 11: bezel of the watch comprises application icons that can be selected by the user);
in accordance with a determination that the input corresponds to the first complication, launching the (col 9 line 52 – col 10 line 11, in response to user input to select an application icon displayed on the bezel of the watch, the application such as “set alarms” described in col 7 line 50-52 can be launched with icon 320).
Although Narayanaswami teaches displaying a list of launchable complications/application icons in a watch interface (Fig. 8A col 9 line 52-60), and further teaches that a wearable watch device may possess a heart rate monitor (col 1 line 35-40), Narayanaswami does not explicitly teach a “heart rate monitoring application” that displays “heart rate information” as a complication. However, Roush teaches a watch that displays heart rate information as a complication (Fig. 13 [0182-0183]):
Roush and Narayanaswami are analogous art because Roush also teach a wrist watch with complications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Roush before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami to include the teachings of Roush so that other traditional watch complications such as heart rate information can also be included in the list of available launchable applications and displayed as a complication on the digital watch face. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide additional applications such as heart rate monitoring as complications for a watch/clock interface for the convenience of the users, thereby providing more customizable features and information for the watch users.
Additionally, although Roush teaches heart rate information is updated to reflect current heart rate zone ([0182-0183] Fig. 13), Narayanaswami-Roush does not explicitly teach updating the heart-rate information with data received while displaying a clock face: “while displaying the user interface: receiving data corresponding to a heart rate of the user of the electronic device; updating the displayed heart-rate information with the data corresponding to the heart rate of the user of the electronic device”.
However, Richards teaches:
while displaying the user interface: (Fig. 9 shows a clock and a heart rate information complication);
receiving data corresponding to a heart rate of the user of the electronic device; ([0091, 0093] Fig. 9 shows a user’s heart rate information was sampled according to user’s current activity state, and the sampled heart rate information is displayed and updated accordingly along with clock interface);
updating the displayed heart-rate information with the data corresponding to the heart rate of the user of the electronic device; and ([0091, 0093] Fig. 9 shows a user’s heart rate information was sampled according to user’s current activity state, and the sampled heart rate information is displayed and updated accordingly along with clock interface);
Richards and Narayanaswami-Roush are analogous art because Richards also teach a wrist watch with heart rate information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush and Richards before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush to include the teachings of Richards so that the heart rate complication displayed can be updated based on sampled user heart rate along with clock interface. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide continuously updated heart rate information along with clock interface without user having to switch between the two application interfaces.
Per claim 2, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further includes a second complication different from the first complication (Narayanaswami: col 9 line 52-60: Fig. 8A shows a list of more than two user selectable complications/applications), wherein the second complication is an affordance for launching a workout application. (Narayanaswami: col 9 line 52-60: Fig. 8A shows a list of launchable complications/applications; Roush [0124, 0127] Fig. 4A-4C show a workout application to track progress on user’s fitness goal such as number of steps).
Per claim 3, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches:
the one or more programs further including instructions for:
in accordance with a determination that the input corresponds to the second complication (Narayanaswami: col 9 line 52-60: Fig. 8A shows a list of launchable complications/applications with user input), launching a workout application (Narayanaswami: col 9 line 52-60: Fig. 8A shows a list of launchable complications/applications; Roush [0124, 0127] Fig. 4A-4C show a workout application to track progress on user’s fitness goal such as number of steps).
Per claim 4, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further includes:
while displaying the user interface: (Richards Fig. 9)
receiving data corresponding to a heart rate of the user of the electronic device; and (Richards [0091, 0093] Fig. 9 shows a user’s heart rate information was sampled according to user’s current activity state, and the sampled heart rate information is displayed and updated accordingly along with clock interface);
displaying, within the second complication, a graphical representation corresponding to the heart rate of the user of the electronic device. (Richards [0091, 0093] Fig. 9 shows a user’s heart rate information was sampled according to user’s current activity state, and the sampled heart rate information is displayed and updated accordingly along with clock interface).
Per claim 6, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further includes a third complication different from the first complication (Narayanaswami: col 9 line 52-60: Fig. 8A shows a list of more than three user selectable complications/applications), wherein the third complication is an affordance for launching a weather application (Narayanaswami: col 7 line 57-60: applications includes weather reports).
Per claim 8, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches:
the one or more programs further including instructions for:
in accordance with a determination that the input corresponds to the third complication, launching a weather application (Narayanaswami: col 9 line 9 line 52-60, Fig. 8A: user can select any application icons shown on the bezel to launch the application; col 7 line 57-60: applications includes weather reports).
Per claim 16, claim 16 is a medium claim (Narayanaswami: col 4 line 15-30: Fig. 2 shows the wrist watch system 10 with base card 20 that includes memory 58-59) that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected. The examiner notes the limitation “to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with a display, one or more processors, and memory” is considered intended use that carries no patentable weight.
Per claim 17, claim 17 is a method claim that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami, in view of Watterson, and “The FitBit Charge HR heads-on” by Shaqtech (Sept 19, 2015, screenshots (including updated screenshots) and transcript from video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWo04yzJpdg, hereinafter Shaqtech).
Per claim 5, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 4, but they don’t explicitly teach “wherein displaying the graphical representation includes displaying an animation of a pulsing heart“.
However, Shaqtech teaches:
wherein displaying the graphical representation includes displaying an animation of a pulsing heart. (Page 2 Fig. 1 and 2 shows an animation of a pulsing heart with updated heart rate information for the user on a FitBit Charge HR wearable device).
Shaqtech and Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards are analogous art because Shaqtech also teach a wearable watch device with other functions such as heart rate information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards and Shaqtech before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards to include the teachings of Shaqtech so that animation of a heart is included as part of the user interface. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a more interesting user interface with animation of a heart next to the heart rate information to give users a more intuitive sense of the meaning of the displayed information.
Per claim 18, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not teach turning on the display with user movement raising the device.
However, Shaqtech teaches:
detecting a user movement, wherein the user movement corresponds to the user of the electronic device raising the electronic device; and (Page 3: Fig. 4 shows the user moving the wrist, and raising the device to the front);
in response to detecting the user movement, activating the display, wherein displaying the user interface occurs in response to detecting the user movement. (Page 3: Fig. 3 shows after the user movement, the display is activated to display the clock interface).
Shaqtech and Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards are analogous art because Shaqtech also teach a wearable watch device with other functions such as heart rate information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards and Shaqtech before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards to include the teachings of Shaqtech so that the watch display can be activated when user movement to raise the device is detected. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a power saving mechanism to only activate the display when user movement to raise the device is detected.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami, in view of Roush, Richards, and Oh et al. (US Pub 20110202883, from IDS, hereinafter Oh).
Per claim 7, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 6, but they don’t explicitly teach “receiving data from the weather application; and subsequent to receiving data from the weather application, updating the third complication“.
However, Oh teaches:
the one or more programs further including instructions for:
receiving data from the weather application; and ([0031] Fig. 2A shows a clock/time interface with weather information, where the update icon 234 is tapped by the user, current weather information from a server is received and updated);
subsequent to receiving data from the weather application, updating the third complication. ([0031] the weather icon 220 showing the weather of the specific location 232 is updated according to the most recently updated time 233 after the user tap the update icon 234).
Oh and Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards are analogous art because Oh also teach a clock/watch interfaced with complications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards and Oh before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards to include the teachings of Oh so that weather complication can be updated on the watch interface. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable live update of the weather information through complications on a watch/clock interface, providing user with the most up to date information.
Claim(s) 9-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami, in view of Roush, Richards, and Watterson (US Pub 20150253736, from IDS, hereinafter Watterson).
Per claim 9, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach two different physical activity indicators; Watterson teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further includes concurrently displaying a first visual indication of a first physical activity of the user of the electronic device and a second visual indication of a second physical activity of the user of the electronic device, wherein the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device and the second visual indication of the second physical activity of the user of the electronic device are different ( [0116, 0119] Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 show different visual indications of physical activities such as “steps” and “pulse”, where they are different from each other).
Watterson and Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards are analogous art because Watterson also teach a wrist watch with heart rate information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards and Watterson before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards to include the teachings of Watterson so that other physical activity trackers can be included on the clock interface as well. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide additionally clock complications to help the user to track other physical activities performed by the user.
Per claim 10, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards-Watterson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teach:
wherein the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device corresponds to a physical activity of the user of the electronic device over a first time range, and the second visual indication of the second physical activity of the user of the electronic device corresponds to a physical activity of the user of the electronic device over a second time range, wherein the first time range and the second time range are different. (Watterson: [0078] Fig. 1 and 2 tracks user physiological parameter over different time periods, where Fig. 1 shows parameters/indicators tracked over a day, Fig. 2 shows parameters/indicators tracked during a workout).
Per claim 11, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards-Watterson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches:
the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting a change in the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device; and (Watterson [0084-0085] Fig. 1 shows a tracker to track a number of steps taken by a user, where the pointer 38 may move in response to each recorded step);
in response to detecting the change in the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device, updating the first visual indication of the physical activity of the user of the electronic device. (Watterson [0084-0085] Fig. 1 shows a tracker to track a number of steps taken by a user, where the pointer 38 may move in response to each recorded step).
Per claim 12, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards-Watterson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches:
wherein the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device and the second visual indication of the second physical activity of the user of the electronic device are concentric rings (Watterson: Fig. 5 shows “calorie” and “steps” as concentric rings).
Per claim 13, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards-Watterson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches:
wherein the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device and the second visual indication of the second physical activity of the user of the electronic device are non-concentric rings. (Watterson: [0081] Fig. 1 shows “calorie” and “heart rate” as non-concentric rings).
Per claim 14, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards-Watterson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further includes a clock hand that overlaps the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device and does not overlap the second visual indication of the second physical activity of the user of the electronic device. (Watterson: [0081, 0094] Fig. 1 shows two complications 24 and 28 overlapping different portions of the clock face, where the minute or hour hand would overlap with one of the visual indication/complication for physical activity at a given time, but not the other).
Per claim 15, N Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards-Watterson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further includes a clock hand that overlaps the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device and the second visual indication of the second physical activity of the user of the electronic device. (Watterson [0117] Fig. 5 shows “Calorie” and “steps” as concentric rings where any clock hand would overlap with both visual indications at any given time).
Per claim 19, Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not teach the following limitations:
“displaying the user interface includes concurrently displaying a first visual indication of a first physical activity of the user of the electronic device indicating user progress for a physical activity over a predetermined interval of time along with the clock face and the first complication; and
the one or more program further include instructions for, in accordance with a determination of the input corresponds to the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device, launching a physical activity monitoring application.”
However, Watterson teaches:
displaying the user interface includes concurrently displaying a first visual indication of a first physical activity of the user of the electronic device indicating user progress for a physical activity over a predetermined interval of time along with the clock face and the first complication; and ([0116] Fig. 4 shows a user interface concurrently displaying a step counter 18 and a clock interface 20; [0119] where the step counter may be used during a workout (predetermined interval of time));
the one or more program further include instructions for, in accordance with a determination of the input corresponds to the first visual indication of the first physical activity of the user of the electronic device, launching a physical activity monitoring application. ([0119] in response to a command from a button or audible command, which corresponds to the indicators, the tracking of these parameters/indicators can be started/stopped).
Watterson and Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards are analogous art because Watterson also teach a wrist watch with heart rate information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards and Watterson before him/her, to modify the teachings of Narayanaswami-Roush-Richards to include the teachings of Watterson so that the tracked indicators can be started and stopped with a user command. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide the users with optional commands to start and stop the tracking of the indicators.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patents & Publications
US 20010043514 A1
Kita, Kazunori
Wearable information processing terminal has spring in band section for connecting electronic device in band section with electronic circuit in main case
US 6418394 B1
Denise; Jason Adam
Control of measuring device includes display of specified operating and sub-operating modes to user and indicating alternatives in loop sequence stepping mode during help request
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179