DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitlow et al. (Pub # US 2012/0075122 A1), and further in view of Levesque et al. (Pub # US 2015/0347075 A1).
Consider claim 1, Whitlow et al. teaches an electronic device comprising: a memory having stored thereon a dynamic haptic alert (DHA) module for managing one or more of an intensity, a frequency, a duration, and pattern of haptic responses by the electronic device [0015 and 0036]; a haptic output device; a processor communicatively coupled to the haptic output device and the memory, and which executes program code of the DHA module, which enables the electronic device to: detect a haptic triggering event; and in response to detecting the haptic triggering event: generate a first haptic output [0041]; wait a predetermined duration for an acknowledgement of the first haptic output; and in response to the first haptic output not being acknowledged after the predetermined duration, change a haptic setting of the electronic device and generate-a second haptic output that has at least one parameter that differs from a corresponding parameter of the first haptic output [0054], determine a pattern of responses to multiple occurrences of the first haptic output over a period of time [0048 and 0053].
Whitlow et al. does not teach in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event.
In the same field of endeavor, Levesque et al. teaches in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event [0044] for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event as shown in Lecveaque et al., in Whitlow et al. device for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness.
Consider claim 3, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein to change the haptic setting and generate the second haptic output, the processor increases an amplitude parameter [0036 and 0049].
Consider claim 4, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein to change the haptic setting and generate the second haptic output, the processor increases a frequency parameter [0049].
Consider claim 5, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein the first haptic output has a first duration of vibration, and wherein to change the haptic setting and generate a second haptic output, the processor provides a second duration of vibration, wherein the second duration of vibration is different from the first duration of vibration [0049].
Consider claim 6, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein the first haptic output has a first pattern of vibration, and wherein to change the haptic setting and generate a second haptic output, the processor generates a second pattern of vibration that is different from the first pattern of vibration [0054].
Consider claim 8, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 as set forth above.
Consider claim 10, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3 as set forth above.
Consider claim 11, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 4 as set forth above.
Consider claim 12, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 5 as set forth above.
Consider claim 13, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 6 as set forth above.
Consider claim 15, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium have program instructions that when executed by a processor of an electronic device that comprises a display, the program instructions configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: detecting a haptic triggering event; in response to detecting the haptic triggering event: generate a first haptic output [0041]; wait a predetermined duration for an acknowledgement of the first haptic output; and in response to the first haptic output not being acknowledged after the predetermined duration, change a haptic setting of the electronic device and generate-a second haptic output that has at least one parameter that differs from a corresponding parameter of the first haptic output [0054], determine a pattern of responses to multiple occurrences of the first haptic output over a period of time [0048 and 0053].
Whitlow et al. does not teach in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event.
In the same field of endeavor, Levesque et al. teaches in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event [0044] for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event as shown in Lecveaque et al., in Whitlow et al. device for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness.
Consider claim 17, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the computer program product, wherein the computer program product further comprises program instruction for the haptic setting by increasing at least one of an amplitude parameter and a frequency parameter [0036 and 0049].
Consider claim 19, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the computer program product, wherein the first haptic output has a first duration of vibration, and wherein the computer program product further comprises program instructions for providing a second duration of vibration, wherein the second duration of vibration is different from the first duration of vibration [0049].
Consider claim 20, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the computer program product, wherein the first haptic output has a first pattern of vibration, and wherein the computer program product further comprises program instructions for providing a second pattern of vibration, wherein the second pattern of vibration is different from the first pattern of vibration [0054].
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitlow (Pub # US 2012/0075122 A1) in view of Levesque et al. (Pub # US 2015/0347075 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Sutherland (Pub # US 2021/0084436 A1).
Consider claim 7, Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference teaches the similar invention.
Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference does not teach the electronic device, further comprising a body proximity sensor coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor: determines whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generates the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device.
In the same field of endeavor, Sutherland teaches the electronic device, further comprising a body proximity sensor coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor: determines whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generates the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device [0083] for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a body proximity sensor coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor: determines whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generates the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device as shown in Sutherland, in Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined device for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user.
Consider claim 14, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 7 as set forth above.
Consider claim 21, Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference teaches similar invention.
Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference does not teach wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions that configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generating the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device.
In the same field of endeavor, Sutherland teaches wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions that configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generating the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device [0083] for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions that configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generating the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device as shown in Sutherland, in Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined device for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remark, Applicant argues that neither Whitlow nor Levesque teaches or suggests: “(i) determine a pattern of responses to multiple occurrences of the first haptic output relative to an established baseline over a period of time; and (ii) in response to the pattern of responses to the multiple occurrences indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output relative to the established baseline, trigger the change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These arguments are not persuasive because they consider the cited portions of Whitlow too narrowly and do not account for the combined teachings of the references. Whitlow is not limited to determining whether a response was received for only one isolated alert. Whitlow expressly discloses inferring fatigue, drowsiness, or inattention for an observed pattern or user input and activity in term of latency and error rate [0029]. Whitlow further discloses passively monitoring input patterns to discern an increase in latency or errors to a known event such as an alert, using system capable of monitoring alert events over time and determining whether the user’s response latency has increased [0032]. In addition, Whitlow teaches monitoring a person’s response to alerts, behaviorally or neurologically, to determine whether alert escalation is necessary. When the person does not respond appropriately, as measured by input latency and accuracy, the system repeats and escalates the alert characteristics [0036].
Applicant argument focuses on Whitlow’s audible-alert examples. However, Whitlow expressly states that the distinction between a nominal and enhanced alert may include: activating a tactile feedback element ant a lower or escalated intensity; activating a tactile feedback element using different detectable patterns; and changing the frequency or other parameters of the alert. Whitlow further discloses escalated tactile-feedback intensity and an escalated or different tactile-feedback pattern. Thus, the response-monitoring and escalation teachings are expressly applicable to haptic outputs and are not limited to audible alerts.
Also, in the same Remark, Applicant’s assertion that Whitlow does not disclose an “established baseline” is also not persuasive. The claims do not require that the established baseline be stored using a particular data structure, calculated according to a particular mathematical formula, or expressly labeled a “baseline”. Detecting an increase in latency necessarily involves comparing current response latency with a prior, expected, threshold, or nominal response level. Whitlow disclosure of monitoring a pattern of user inputs to detect an increase in latency therefore teaches of at least suggests comparing later user responses with an established reference level. Whitlow also discloses using different thresholds depending on the phase of flight. Further demonstrating the use of predetermined reference levels for evaluating user responsiveness.
Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, Whitlow’s prior or nominal response level against which an increase in latency is detected corresponds to the claimed established baseline.
In response to Applicant’s separate-reference arguments. Applicant’s contention that Levesque, standing alone does not determine degradation relative to a response-time baseline dose not overcome the rejection. Levesque is not relied upon independently for that limitation. Whitlow is relied upon for monitoring response patterns, detecting increased response latency, and determining the need for escalation. Levesque is relied upon for learned notification management and selection of different haptic parameters for subsequent notification events.
Obviousness is determined from the combined teachings of references and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in art, rather than by requiring each reference independently to disclose the complete claimed system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights