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 the claim(s) 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Particularly, the NTCRSM including the steps of receiving the information about the user via a software installed on the wireless device, wherein the software application is not configured to manage a cellular connectivity state of the wireless device. Applicant has stated that [0026], [0035]-[0039], [0045], & [0053] provide for these features however it is not so.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claim 2, namely “wherein the information about the user comprises information corresponding to a calendar application”, claim 9, namely “receiving the information about the user via a software installed on the wireless device, wherein the software application is not configured to manage a cellular connectivity state of the wireless device” and The features of claim 16, namely “wherein hysteresis timer is dynamically determined based on the activity that being performed by the user and data regarding one or more previous times in which the user engaged in the activity”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2018/0329075) hereinafter “Wu” and Lee et al. (2021/0339773), hereinafter “Lee”.
As to claim 1, Wu discloses A method for managing a cellular connectivity state of a wireless device in relation to aquatic activity performed using the wireless device, the method comprising, at the wireless device:
determining that the wireless device is submerged underwater (see [0004] “…configured to: determine that the sensor signal is indicative of the mobile device being under water”,);
in response to determining that the wireless device satisfies a threshold depth (see [0004] “… and trigger an action…”, [0034] “… determining a relationship of the mobile device 12 to water, e.g., under water, a depth under water, et.”, [0049] “… indicating that the mobile device has been below a non-zero threshold depth of water in addition to a timer exceeding a threshold amount of time.”):
starting a depth timer ([0049] “… trigger a timer…””),
It is noted that the claim language:
“wherein the wireless device:
terminates the depth timer whenever the wireless device no longer satisfies the threshold depth, and
restarts the depth timer whenever the wireless device satisfies the threshold depth after the depth timer is terminated”
is implied (see [0035]-[0051] however not explicitly stated by Wu. The examiner considers that there are only two options, run continuously or stop and restart accordingly and that either would provide acceptable results. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically have the device the wireless device:
terminates the depth timer whenever the wireless device no longer satisfies the threshold depth, and
restarts the depth timer whenever the wireless device satisfies the threshold depth after the depth timer is terminated as it would have been obvious to try. ; and
in response to identifying that the depth timer has lapsed:
deactivating a baseband component of the wireless device
Wu fails to explicitly recite that the “deactivating” is “to prevent the baseband component from attempting to establish a cellular connection”
Note that [0010] provides for a synonymous usage of SPS signals and “a wireless communication signal” and provides for a “cellular” transceiver 38” in [0026]. [0034] provides for the sensor 36 being “a cellular signal receiver of the transceiver 38”. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu by deactivating the transceiver 38 to prevent the baseband component from attempting to establish a cellular connection for the purpose of power savings.
Wu further discloses
and based on determining that the wireless device is no longer submerged underwater (([0045]: “mobile device 12 has moved from being below water to being above water”), starting a hysteresis timer, wherein the wireless device restarts the hysteresis timer whenever the wireless device becomes re-submerged underwater ([0045]: “…either immediately or after some amount of time”) and
in response to identifying that the hysteresis timer has lapsed: activating the baseband component of the wireless device to enable the baseband component to establish the cellular connection (see [0045] “…turn the receiver of the SPS unit 42 ON”).
In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein a length of the hysteresis timer is dynamically determined based on at least one of information about a user of the wireless device or an activity (gaze of user) that is being performed by the user. See [0114]-[0119]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dynamically a length of the hysteresis timer based on at least one of information about a user of the wireless device or an activity (gaze of user) that is being performed by the user for the purpose of allowing for variances among users.
As to claim 2, (Currently Amended) The combination of Wu and Lee disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the information about the user comprises information corresponding to a calendar application doesn’t carry weight as it is in a contingent limitation and is also nonfunctional.
Nonetheless, the examiner takes official notice that before the instant invention it was notoriously well known in the art information about the user comprises information corresponding to a calendar application. Before the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive information about a user such that information about the user comprises information corresponding to a calendar application for the purpose of simplifying user input / data gathering.
As to claim 3, Wu and Lee disclose The method of claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein determining that the wireless device is submerged underwater comprises analyzing information that includes at least one of: motion information, sound information, pressure information, light information, moisture information, temperature information, or location information. See [0054] “pressure”
As to claim 7, Wu and Lee disclose The method of claim 1, Wu further disclose wherein the wireless device comprises a wearable wireless device (smart watches) that is waterproof or water resistant. See [0003] It is noted that Wu doesn’t explicitly recite that the device is a smart watch but only suggests or implies that the device be a smartwatch and all smart watches are inherently at least “water resistant”. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Wu to a smartwatch that is waterproof or water resistant for the purpose of easily securing the device in the water / applying to a device that could be easily secured during water activities as suggested in [0003]. See also [0021]-[0022].
As to claims 8-10, 14, and 15-17, which correspond to claims 1-3 and 7, in addition Wu discloses mobile terminal 12 with processor 30 and memory 32. See Fig. 2. Additionally, to the receiving step of claim 9 the examiner takes official notice that before the instant invention it was notoriously well known in the art to receive information about a user via a software application not configured to manage a cellular connectivity state installed on a wireless device. Before the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive information about a user via a software application not configured to manage a cellular connectivity state installed on a wireless device for the purpose of simplifying user input / data gathering. Additionally, to the hysteresis of claim 16 the examiner takes official notice that before the instant invention it was notoriously well known in the art to use one or more previous times in which the user engaged in the activity. Before the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one or more previous times in which the user engaged in the activity for the purpose of tailoring the activity to a particular user.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nayak et al. (2022/0346031) hereinafter “Nayak”.
As to claim 4, the combination of Wu and Lee discloses The method of claim 3, is silent yet in an analogous art Nayak discloses wherein:
analyzing the information comprises providing the information to a machine learning engine that has been trained at least in part using prior information gathered from wireless devices in relation to being submerged underwater and/or being involved in aquatic activity, and
the machine learning engine indicates whether the wireless device is submerged underwater.
See [0096] which provide for the use of a (relevantly) trained machine learning to aid a power saving operation.
Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Wu wherein analyzing the information comprises providing the information to a machine learning engine that has been trained at least in part using prior information gathered from wireless devices in relation to being submerged underwater and/or being involved in aquatic activity, and the machine
learning engine indicates whether the wireless device is submerged underwater for the purpose of staying up-to-date with the latest technology.
As to claim 5, the combination of Wu, Lee, and Nayak disclose The method of claim 4, wherein the machine learning engine further indicates whether a user of the wireless device is engaged in an activity that includes at least one of: a swimming activity, a snorkeling activity, a free diving activity, or a scuba diving activity. Wu discloses indication of swimming (see [0006],[0008],[0010],[0021],[0022]. Given the modification applied to claim 4, it is considered that machine learning would be applied to indicate the activity.
As to claim 6, the combination of Wu, Lee, and Nayak discloses The method of claim 5, Wu discloses wherein the threshold depth, the depth timer, and/or the hysteresis timer are assigned respective values based on the activity. See [0050] wherein the threshold depth is based on an activity.
Claims 11-13 and 18-20, correspond to claims 4-6, in addition Wu discloses mobile terminal 12 with processor 30 and memory 32. See Fig. 2.
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 LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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 Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649