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 .
The following action is in response to the amendment/remarks of 06/23/2026.
By the amendment, claims 1, 10 and 11 are amended. Claim 14 is canceled. Claims 15-32 are newly added.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-32 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant argues, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14 over Sookman and Gao, that the combination of Sookman and Gao fail to disclose at least that the first user input including activation of the button causes ceasing to display the first user interface and displaying a second user interface including the visual indication of a countdown wherein the countdown progresses while the physical button is activated and does not progress when the physical button ceases to be activated. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the combination of Sookman and Gao yields mapping a physical key of Gao to the alert request element in Sookman which has no bearing on the completion of the countdown because the countdown of Sookman requires no additional input from the user to complete (Remarks page 12). The Examiner notes that while Sookman does disclose an embodiment where no additional input from the user is required to complete (col 14 lines 14-19), Sookman also discloses that additional user input may be input in order to accelerate progress of the countdown towards completion (col 14 lines 19-23: “In some implementations, the timer 902 may be accelerated or triggered immediately by the user device upon receipt of input from a user, e.g., a touch input, a swipe gesture, or an accelerometer-invoking movement of the user device.”). Accordingly, mapping the physical key of Gao to the alert request element of Sookman does allow for the combination presented wherein additional input, such as the continued input of the physical button, accelerates the countdown of Sookman. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gao’s disclosure of activating the physical key to initiate a corresponding operation and ceasing to activate the key to cease the corresponding operation cannot be mapped to the input element of Sookman because making such a mapping would yield a combination that has two inputs (Remarks page 13). The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not preclude two inputs: a user input including activation of the physical button and a continued activation of the physical button which can be broadly considered as two inputs. Gao teaches that the physical button can be considered an improvement to touch screen controls in situations where the user may not find it convenient to view or operate the screen elements (Gao pp. 27: “When it is not convenient for a user to view the screen or when it is not convenient for a user to perform operations on the screen, the physical key may make the user's operations easier.”). The physical key of Gao is for performing an operation for controlling the application when the physical key is triggered (pp. 29: “When a physical key is triggered, an operation in the user interface of the application is performed and thereby the application can be controlled.”). In improving the method of Sookman, the physical button of Gao is mapped to the alert request element in the user interface of Sookman. The alert request element of Sookman, when activated, controls the alert application to begin the countdown, including replacing the user interface with a countdown interface. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that pressing and holding the physical button in Gao would result in an indefinite countdown rather than the countdown disclosed by Sookman (Remarks page 13). The Examiner disagrees. Gao discloses that continued activation of the physical button performs additional function for the application, such as take continuous photos (pp. 47). Gao also discloses embodiments where the user stops activation of the physical button to stop an additional function, such as “hold to talk” to record a message (pp. 48). As discussed above, Sookman discloses that additional input can be used to accelerate the countdown once it starts; combination with Gao yields initiating the countdown and continuing the countdown while the physical button is activated but ceasing when the physical button ceases to be activated. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Sookman and Gao (Remarks page 14). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). While Sookman discloses “a straightforward and secure method for users to send security alerts”, Sookman does disclose that embodiments where additional input is considered an improvement, as discussed above. Gao further discloses potential situations where physical keys are preferred to touch screen keys. The argument is not persuasive.
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, 15-17, 19-22, 24-26 and 28-31 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. wherein the countdown progresses while the physical button is activated and does not progress when the physical button ceases to be activated.
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), ceasing the corresponding action when the physical button ceases to receive input (¶47-48). 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 and continuation of a respective operation until activation ceases, 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 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 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 claims 10, 15-17, 19, 20-21 and 22-23, claims 10, 15-17, 19, 20-21 and 22-23 recite limitations similar to claims 1, 2-4, 6, 8-9 and 12-13, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 11, 24-26, 28, 29-30 and 31-32, claims 11, 24-26, 28, 29-30 and 31-31 recite limitations similar to claims 1, 2-4, 6, 8-9 and 12-13, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Claims 5, 18 and 27 are 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).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, claims 18 and 27 each recite limitations similar to claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 23 and 32 are 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.
Sanford et al.
US 20050128879 A1
TIMER device with physical switches
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 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
Prosecution Insights