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 § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites determine whether the data indicates that the apparatus is underwater. Determining whether the apparatus is underwater is disclosed as comparing the measured environmental value to a threshold or range or threshold rate of change (par. 54). A human can observe the environmental measurement and compare the value to a threshold or range and therefore, the abstract idea falls into the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Comparing values is also a mathematical relationship, and therefore, the abstract idea also falls into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional elements are a sensor; at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to: receive, by use of the sensor, data corresponding to an environmental factor; and in response to the data indicating that the apparatus is underwater, change operation of the apparatus.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The sensor and receiving, by use of the sensor, data corresponding to an environmental factor is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The memory and the processor amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitations to in response to the data indicating that the apparatus is underwater, change operation of the apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide anything beyond what is provided individually.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph. Further, with regard to the sensor and receiving data with the sensor, the courts have recognized that collecting data in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites a further additional element that the apparatus comprises a smart watch. The limitation for a smart watch is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination with the other additional elements, the additional elements do not amount to anything more than what is provided individually. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites further details of the additional element that the sensor is a barometric pressure sensor. The barometric sensor is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered in combination with the other additional elements, the additional elements do not amount to anything more than what is provided individually. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and only recites further details of the abstract idea. Therefore 4 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites a further details of the additional element that hanging the operation of the apparatus comprises disabling a feature of the apparatus, enabling a feature of the apparatus, or a combination thereof. Disabling or enabling a feature apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide anything beyond what is provided individually. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reason.
Independent claim 6 recites a similar abstract idea to that recited in claim 1. Claim 6 recites some of the same additional elements recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Independent claim 18 recites a similar abstract idea to that recited in claim 1. Claim 18 recites some of the same additional elements recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites a similar additional element to that recited in claim 2 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 8-10 and 19 recite similar additional elements to that recited in claim 3 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 11, 12 and 20 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements and are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 13-16 recite similar additional elements to that recited in claim 5 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites further details of the abstract idea and does not recite any additional elements. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2020/0064781 to Shim et al. (Shim).
Claims 1, 6 and 18
Shim teaches a sensor (Fig. 1A, pressure sensor 200; pars. 2, 53); at least one memory (Fig. 1A, memory 170; par. 29); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 1A, controller 180; par. 37).
With regard to the processor configured to cause the apparatus to: receive, by use of the sensor, data corresponding to an environmental factor; Shim teaches measuring data with a pressure sensor (Fig. 5A, S21; pars. 52, 53, 76).
With regard to the processor configured to cause the apparatus to: determine whether the data indicates that the apparatus is underwater; Shim teaches comparing the pressure change to a reference pressure change to determine when the watch-type terminal moves from land to water (Fig. 5A, S22; par. 77).
With regard to the processor configured to cause the apparatus to: in response to the data indicating that the apparatus is underwater, change operation of the apparatus; Shim teaches switching from a on-land mode to an underwater mode (Fig. 5A, S24, S25; pars. 80, 81).
Claims 2 and 7
Shim teaches that the apparatus comprises a smart watch (Fig. 1A, pars. 28, 29).
Claims 5 and 13
Shim teaches that changing the operation of the apparatus comprises disabling a feature of the apparatus, enabling a feature of the apparatus, or a combination thereof (pars. 80, 81).
Claim 15
Shim teaches that enabling a feature of the apparatus comprises enabling an underwater function of the apparatus (par. 80).
Claim 16
Shim teaches that the underwater function of the apparatus comprises a swim mode of the apparatus (par. 117).
Claim 17
Shim teaches that determining whether the data indicates that the apparatus is underwater comprises detecting whether a measurement of the sensor is outside of a predetermined set of measurements (pars. 80, 81).
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, 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) 3, 4, 8-12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0085185 to Jackson et al. (Jackson).
Claims 3, 8-10 and 19
Shim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends, claim 6, upon which claims 8-10 depend and claim 18 upon which claim 19 depends. Shim does not teach that the sensor comprises a barometric pressure sensor as recited in claims 3, 8 and 19 or that the data or environmental factor comprises barometric data as recited in claims 9 and 10.
Jackson teaches using a barometric pressure sensor to determine underwater depth and to determine whether a wearable device is submerged (pars. 55, 61, 68). A barometric pressure sensor would measure barometric pressure data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the watch terminal, as taught by Shim, to include a barometric pressure sensor, as taught by Jackson, because then an alternative method of measuring temperature would have been available with the capability of measuring atmospheric pressure and providing additional data to the watch user.
Claims 4, 12 and 20
Shim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, claim 6 upon which claim 12 depends and claim 18 upon claim 20 depends. Shim does not teach that the data indicates that the apparatus is underwater in response to a measured barometric pressure passing a threshold rate of change. Jackson teaches determining an acceleration change that exceeds a threshold based on the pressure change (par. 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the watch terminal, as taught by Shim, to include a barometric pressure sensor, as taught by Jackson, because then an alternative method of measuring temperature would have been available with the capability of measuring atmospheric pressure and providing additional data to the watch user.
Claim 11
Shim teaches all the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 11 depends. Shim does not teach that the data indicates that the apparatus is underwater in response to a measured barometric pressure passing a threshold value. Jackson teaches using a barometric pressure sensor to determine underwater depth and to determine whether a wearable device is submerged (pars. 55, 61, 68). A barometric pressure sensor would measure barometric pressure data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the watch terminal, as taught by Shim, to include a barometric pressure sensor, as taught by Jackson, because then an alternative method of measuring temperature would have been available with the capability of measuring atmospheric pressure and providing additional data to the watch user.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0011926 to Zhao et al. (Zhao).
Claim 14
Shim teaches all the limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 14 depends. Shim does not teach that disabling a feature of the apparatus comprises disabling a touch screen of the apparatus. Zhao teaches disabling a touch screen of a device when submerged (par. 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the watch terminal, as taught by Shim, to include disabling a touch screen when submerged, as taught by Zhao, because then erroneous input would have been avoided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 2025/0065191 to Zhang teaches using a barometric pressure sensor to determine if a device is submerged (pars. 81, 117).
US Patent Application Publication 2025/0036191 to Omura teaches a wearable device that includes a pressure sensor used to determine if the device is submerged (Figs. 3, 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights