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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed 12/15/2025 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
The following action is in response to the amendment/remarks of 12/15/2025.
By the amendment, claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 are amended. Claim 7 is canceled. Claim 14 is newly added.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been considered and is persuasive in light of the corresponding amendment. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12 by SOOKMAN (Remarks pages 6-7) and the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 over SOOKMAN in view of MALY (Remarks pages 7-8) have been considered and found persuasive in light of the corresponding amendments. Particularly, the Examiner notes that while SOOKMAN does disclose a physical button used to launch the emergency application (col 19 lines 22-24), SOOKMAN fails to disclose wherein activation of the physical button is part of the first user input which causes the ceasing and displaying steps. Accordingly, the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12 by SOOKMAN and the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 over SOOKMAN and MALY are withdrawn. However, on further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made in light of GAO (US 20160187997 A1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sookman et al., US 8,890,685 B1 [“SOOKMAN”] in view of Gao et al., US 2016/0187997 A1 [“GAO”].
Regarding claim 1, SOOKMAN discloses an electronic device (col 5 lines 13-60: mobile device), comprising:
a display (col 5 lines 13-60);
a physical button (col 19 lines 22-28);
one or more processors (col 5 lines 13-60);
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (col 5 lines 13-60), the one or more programs including instructions for:
while displaying, via the display, a first user interface detecting a first user input (Fig. 8, Fig. 14, col 13 lines 50-61, col 22 lines 11-24);
in response to detecting the first user input (col 14 lines 2-8, col 22 lines 15-17):
ceasing to display the first user interface that was displayed when the first user input was detected (Fig. 9, Fig. 15); and
displaying, via the display, a second user interface including a visual indication of a countdown for initiation of a respective operation and one or more selectable user interface objects that were not included in the first user interface (Fig. 9 col 14 lines 2-8, Fig. 15 col 22 lines 42-47), wherein completion of the countdown causes initiation of the respective operation (col 14 lines 7-19, col 15 lines 18-20);
after displaying the second user interface, determining that the countdown has completed (col 14 lines 7-19, col 15 lines 18-20); and
in response to determining that the countdown has completed, causing initiation of the respective operation (col 14 lines 7-19, col 15 lines 18-20).
While SOOKMAN discloses activating a physical button to launch the emergency application (col 19 lines 22-24), SOOKMAN fails to disclose wherein activation of the physical button is part of the first user input which causes the ceasing display of the first user interface and displaying of the second user interface.
GAO discloses methods for interacting with an electronic device for initiating actions through user inputs (¶2-3, 5). In particular, GAO discloses in response to receiving and while continuing to receive a user input through a physical button, performing a corresponding action displayed on the display screen (¶29, ¶47-48, Fig. 5, Fig. 6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of the SOOKMAN and GAO before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the continued activation of a physical button causing initiation of a respective operation, as taught by GAO, with the activation first user input ceasing display of the first user interface and displaying the second user interface having the visual countdown to a respective operation of SOOKMAN. One would have been motivated to make this combination to provide the user with easier and convenient methods of interaction with the electronic device, as suggested by GAO (¶26-29).
Regarding claim 2, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and SOOKMAN further discloses:
in response to determining that the countdown has not completed, forgoing performing the respective operation (col 14 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 3, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and SOOKMAN further discloses:
while continuing to detect the first user input:
determining whether a duration of the first user input exceeds a first predetermined amount of time (col 26 lines 1-2: input in form of tactile input inherently requires a time threshold) and
in accordance with a determination that the duration of the first user input exceeds the first predetermined amount of time, displaying an affordance for performing the respective operation (Fig. 9 col 14 lines 2-8, Fig. 15 col 22 lines 42-47).
Regarding claim 4, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 3, and SOOKMAN further discloses wherein the visual indication of the countdown is displayed at a location corresponding to the affordance for performing the respective operation (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 6, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 3, and SOOKMAN further discloses:
detecting, via the display, a second user input directed to the affordance for performing the respective operation (col 22 lines 42-45); and
in response to detecting the second user input directed to the affordance, performing the respective operation (col 22 lines 42-45).
Regarding claim 7, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and SOOKMAN further discloses wherein the first user input includes activation of a physical button on the electronic device (col 19 lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 8, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and SOOKMAN further discloses while displaying the visual indication of the countdown, providing audio feedback to indicate progress of the countdown (col 25 lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 9, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and SOOKMAN further discloses:
subsequent to completion of the countdown, providing an audio output (col 15 lines 21-23).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, each of claims 10 and 11 recite limitations similar to claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and SOOKMAN further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for:
subsequent to initiation of the respective operation, displaying, via the display, a second visual indication of a second countdown, wherein completion of the countdown causes initiation of a second respective operation different from the respective operation (col 14 lines 24-30).
Regarding claim 14, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and GAO further discloses wherein the countdown progresses while the physical button is activated and does not progress when the physical button ceases to be activated (¶48: stop when released).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOOKMAN in view of GAO and in further view of Maly et al., US 2016/0227023 A1 [“MALY”].
Regarding claim 5, SOOKMAN and GAO disclose the electronic device of claim 3, and SOOKMAN further discloses wherein the affordance for performing the respective operation corresponds to a graphical element (Fig. 15).
SOOKMAN and GAO fail to disclose wherein the graphical element is a slider.
MALY discloses methods for performing actions and preventing accidental actions on mobile devices (¶18). In particular MALY discloses that confirming an action using an actuation of a graphical element, wherein the graphical element is a slider (¶36). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of SOOKMAN, GAO and MALY before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to simply substitute a slider as a graphical element for selection of a confirmation of an action on a mobile device, as taught by MALY, for the graphical element for selection of a confirmation of an action on the mobile device of SOOKMAN and GAO. One would have been motivated to make this combination due to the rationale of simple substitution of similar elements to yield predictable results (KSR rationale).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jobs; Steven et al.
US 20080168290 A1
POWER-OFF METHODS FOR PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
Hawkins; Jeffrey C. et al.
US 20100087185 A1
INTEGRATED PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANT DEVICE
Nepo; Michael
US 20150137972 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISSEMINATING INFORMATION AND IMPLEMENTING MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS TO FACILITATE THE SAFE EMERGENCE OF USERS FROM PREDICAMENTS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141