DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4,7-15 and 17-22 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 7, 9, 17 and 22 are amended. Claim 6 is cancelled. This office action is response to the submission on 10/16/2023.
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
With respect to the Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of applicant response filed 4/7/2026 with respect to the objection of claim 9 have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to the claim. The objection to claim 9 has been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. §102 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of applicant response filed 4/7/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 Rejections have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to claims 1, 17, and 22. Applicant argues that Ferrie (US 2022/0061399) does not teach an operation condition of the input operation determined by the user and that Ferrie does not describe a comparison between an input operation to execute a predetermined function and an input operation for unlocking that executes the predetermined function when the two are equal.
Examiner agrees, Ferrie does not teach these limitations of a user-created operation condition for unlocking the device and a user-created operation condition for executing a predetermined function, and executing the predetermined function when the two operation conditions are equal and it is inputted while locked. The 35 U.S.C. §102 Rejections have been withdrawn.
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 7 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.
Claim 1 includes limitations of “an operation condition of the input operation determined by the user for unlocking the locked state”, and “when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute the predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the circuitry is configured to execute the predetermined function.” Examiner sees support for this limitation in paragraph [0013]. Claim 7 includes limitations of “upon receiving the input operation in the locked state, when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute the predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the circuitry is configured to decide, based on priority of the predetermined function, whether to set a state in which the locked state is unlocked or execute the predetermined function according to the input operation.”
The above limitations appear to be contradictory – Claim 1 states that when the predetermined function operation condition and unlock operation are the same, the device will execute the predetermined function upon receiving that operation condition. Claim 7 states that upon receiving the input operation, the circuitry decides based on priority of the predetermined function whether to unlock the device or execute the predetermined function. Examiner does not see support for the device executing the predetermined function when the predetermined function operation condition and unlock operation condition are the same and the device also checking whether to execute the predetermined function or unlock the device based on a priority when the operation conditions are the same.
Claims 8-10 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 7.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being unclear.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 includes limitations of “an operation condition of the input operation determined by the user for unlocking the locked state”, and “when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute the predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the circuitry is configured to execute the predetermined function.” These limitations appear to render the device unable to unlock if the user sets the operation condition for unlocking the locked state to the same operation condition for executing the predetermined function, as the device would only be able to execute the predetermined function and not be able to unlock when inputting the operation condition for unlocking the locked state. This severely reduces functionality of the device, as it would only be able to execute the predetermined function. It is unclear whether the applicant intends for the device to be used in this way.
Claim 7:
Claim 1 includes limitations of “an operation condition of the input operation determined by the user for unlocking the locked state”, and “when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute the predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the circuitry is configured to execute the predetermined function.” Claim 7 includes limitations of “upon receiving the input operation in the locked state, when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute the predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the circuitry is configured to decide, based on priority of the predetermined function, whether to set a state in which the locked state is unlocked or execute the predetermined function according to the input operation.”
The above limitations appear to be contradictory – Claim 1 states that when the predetermined function operation condition and unlock operation are the same, the device will execute the predetermined function upon receiving that operation condition. Claim 7 states that upon receiving the input operation, the circuitry decides based on priority of the predetermined function whether to unlock the device or execute the predetermined function. It is unclear how the device would always execute the predetermined function when the operation conditions are the same but also check a priority of the predetermined function in order to determine whether to execute the predetermined function when the operation conditions are the same.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 includes limitations of “upon receiving the input operation in the locked state, when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute a predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the predetermined function is executed.” These limitations appear to render the device unable to unlock if the user sets the operation condition for unlocking the locked state to the same operation condition for executing the predetermined function, as the device would only be able to execute the predetermined function and not be able to unlock when inputting the operation condition for unlocking the locked state. This severely reduces functionality of the device, as it would only be able to execute the predetermined function. It is unclear whether the applicant intends for the device to be used in this way.
Claim 22:
Claim 22 includes limitations of “wherein the circuitry is configured to set an operation condition of the input operation determined by the user for unlocking the locked state, and upon receiving the input operation in the locked state, when the operation condition of the input operation set in advance to execute the predetermined function equals the operation condition of the input operation determined by the user, the circuitry is configured to execute the predetermined function.”
These limitations appear to render the device unable to unlock if the user sets the operation condition for unlocking the locked state to the same operation condition for executing the predetermined function, as the device would only be able to execute the predetermined function and not be able to unlock when inputting the operation condition for unlocking the locked state. This severely reduces functionality of the device, as it would only be able to execute the predetermined function. It is unclear whether the applicant intends for the device to be used in this way.
Claims 2-4, 7-15 and 18-21 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 Zachary A Cain whose telephone number is (571)272-4503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:30 CST.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/Z.A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights