DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims and Request for Continued Examination filed October 29, 2025 are received and entered.
2. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6, 11 – 12, 19, and 22 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 22 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. 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 / Amendment
4. On page 11 of the Response, Applicant “maintains the previously asserted arguments”.
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in the Advisory Action mailed October 9, 2025.
5. On page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues that “paragraph [0052] of Kim describes the grip sensor as a pressure sensor”.
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. This portion of Kim refers only to an alternative camera embodiment which has not been relied on or referenced by the Office. Accordingly, Applicant’s observation as to what is disclosed in paragraph [0052] of Kim is irrelevant to the current or any previous rejections of the claims in view of the teachings of Kim.
6. On page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues that “the touch sensor [of the grip sensor] outputs touch detection data only when touch pressure is present.”
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. There is no such disclosure or requirement in Kim supporting Applicant’s argument. Instead, this is merely a figment of Applicant’s imagination.
Additionally, the grip sensor unit 20 of the mobile phone apparatus 100A of Kim includes a touch sensor, not a pressure sensor (FIGS. 1, 2; paragraph [0053]). Typically, touch sensors, such as a contact-type capacitance touch sensor (paragraph [0061]), are constantly monitored for any inputs that exceed a threshold change in capacitance in order to detect presence of a touch input. Accordingly, such a touch sensor of the grip sensor 20 of Kim would output sensor data indicating both a touched state [first sensor data] and a non-touched state [second sensor data].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that the disclosure of Kim either implicitly or inherently discloses such a configuration based on the grip sensor unit 20 including a touch sensor for grip detection.
7. On page 13 of the Response, Applicant argues “the conventional technique in the art for detecting whether an electronic device is gripped involves comparing sensor data from a touched state of the electronic device with a preset threshold to determine if the electronic device is gripped”. Applicant alleges that this is somehow different from “a difference between sensor data from a touch state and sensor data from a non-touch state”.
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Second sensor data in a non-touch state would have a value below a threshold, such as a change in capacitance of zero from an initial non-touched state. First sensor data in a touched state would have a value above a threshold, such as a change in capacitance from zero to a value greater than the threshold. This difference from the “second sensor data” to the “first sensor data” is what is utilized to determine whether a user’s grip is detected by grip sensor 20 of Kim.
Accordingly, the disclosure of Kim and the conventional technique in the art teach Applicant’s “difference” as presently recited.
8. On page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues that “Kim does not teach or suggest calculating a touch area based on the touch parameter”.
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant has provided no rationale or analysis of Kim that rebuts the previous finding regarding this recitation. Instead, all Applicant says is that they “respectfully disagree . . . that Kim discloses” what is clearly set forth in paragraphs [0064], [0111], and [0112].
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
9. On page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues that, in Kim, “the user’s touch detected is not a part of the process of determining a user’s grip” because “[T]he touch signal is combined with the grip signal only to avoid the image display region being at the touch location of the user”.
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant’s claim recite a “gripping posture”, not a user’s grip. Additionally, this “gripping posture” is based on a combination of “first sensor data and the touch parameter”. See claim 1, lines 7 – 8.
As set forth on page 5 of the Final Rejection mailed July 30, 2025, the Examiner clearly articulated that a user’s “gripping posture” is determined according to both the “grip state” and the “first touch signal”. According to paragraph [0099], both the grip in step 110 and first touch signal in step 120 are generated at the same time. This is interpreted as determining a “gripping posture” which occurs in step 130 of FIG. 3, and which is used to determine an appropriate image display region in step 140.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
10. On page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues that, “in a system combining the teachings of Kim and Yoon, the touch signal would only serve to indicate the user’s touch location after a determination has already been made that the user is gripping the device”.
The Office finds Applicants arguments unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. As set forth above, the Examiner clearly articulated on page 5 of the Final Rejection mailed July 30, 2025 that a user’s “gripping posture” is determined according to both the “grip state” and the “first touch signal”. Step 130 is interpreted as the step in which a “gripping posture” is determined, and which is used to determine an appropriate image display region in step 140.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
11. This Office Action is made FINAL because the presently presented claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 22 would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record had they been presented prior to filing the RCE.
As set forth in MPEP §706.07(b), "claims of an application for quick a request for continued examination (RCE) has been filed may be finally rejected in the action immediately subsequent to the filing of the RCE . . . where all the claims in the application . . . (A) are either identical to or patentably indistinct from the claims in the application prior to the entry of the [RCE] . . . (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE."
Claims 1, 2, and 5 were properly finally rejected in the Final Rejection mailed July 30, 2025. Amended claim 1 only includes one additional feature to what was previously recited in claim 5. That feature requires “wherein the first sensor data is sensor data of the touch sensor in a touch state”.
However, on page 5 of the Final Rejection, the Examiner found that Kim teaches: obtaining first sensor data of a touch sensor (FIGS. 2, 3; paragraphs [0053], [0095], [0096]; grip sensor unit 20 includes a touch sensor that detects a grip state [first sensor data] of a user relative to the apparatus 100A in operation 110). Accordingly, this newly added subject matter to claim 1 was already rejected in the previous Office Action.
Since amended claim 1 is rejected below for the exact same reasons as the rejection of claim 5 from before the RCE was filed, amended claim 1 would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record if the amendment had been entered earlier. Instead, Applicant filed an RCE containing only previously rejected subject matter of previous claims 2 and 5 now combined into amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claim 1 is rejected for the exact same reasons set forth in the Parent Application in the Office Action mailed July 30, 2025 with regard to previous claims 2 and 5.
Applicant should have known at the time of filing the RCE that the present recitations would be subject to a First Action Final Rejection because these claims "would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office Action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE”.
Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6, 8, 11 – 12, 14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (U.S. Pub. 2016/0050362) and Yoon et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0266524).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches: a method for recognizing gripping posture, performed by a terminal (FIG. 2; paragraph [0045]; digital image processing apparatus 100A), and the method comprises:
obtaining first sensor data of a touch sensor, wherein the first sensor data is sensor data of the touch sensor in a touch state (FIGS. 2, 3; paragraphs [0053], [0054], [0095], [0096]; grip sensor unit 20 includes a touch sensor that detects a grip state [first sensor data] of a user relative to the apparatus 100A in operation 110 when the user is gripping the apparatus [touch state]);
obtaining a touch parameter (FIGS. 2, 3; paragraphs [0055], [0097], [0098]; touch sensor unit 30 detects a touch and generates a first touch signal [touch parameter] in operation 120); and
determining the gripping posture of the terminal according to the first sensor data and the touch parameter (FIGS. 2, 3; paragraph [0099]; a particular location of a user’s grip [gripping posture] is determined in operation 130 according a simultaneous determination of the grip state [first sensor data] and the first touch signal [touch parameter]);
wherein the determining the gripping posture of the terminal according to the first sensor data and the touch parameter comprises:
obtaining a difference between the first sensor data and second sensor data, wherein the second sensor data is sensor data of the touch sensor in a non-touch state (paragraph [0054]; the grip sensor detects either that the user is gripping the apparatus 100A [first sensor data in a touch state] or that the user is not gripping the apparatus 100A [second sensor data in a non-touch state]. It is implied that when a user grips the apparatus 100A, the grip sensor changes from second sensor data to first sensor data. The difference therebetween indicates a user is gripping the apparatus);
determining a touch area on the second screen according to the touch parameter (FIGS. 5, 7; paragraphs [0056], [0064], [0112], [0124]; touch sensor unit 30 generates a first touch signal in response to a touch on display unit 40. The first touch signal [touch parameter] may include touch location and touch area of the applied touch. In this claim, the phrase “touch area” can be interpreted as a generalized area/region on which a touch is applied. For example, touched locations 200B and 200C, while being different locations, both correspond to a right-most area/region that results in the image display region being reset to image display region 130A, B, or C depending on the particular location of the touches 200B and 200C); and
determining the gripping posture of the terminal according to the difference and the touch area (FIGS. 2, 3; paragraph [0099]; a particular location of a user’s grip [gripping posture] is determined according to the difference between the second and first sensor data, set forth above, and the touch parameter, including both a touch location and touch area of an applied touch).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the terminal comprises a foldable screen, the foldable screen comprises a first screen and a second screen; the touch sensor arranged on a side bezel of the first screen; and the touch parameter being of the second screen; wherein the gripping posture comprises single-sided gripping on first side, single-sided gripping on second side or double-sided gripping
However, in a related field of endeavor, Yoon discloses an electronic device 200 that includes a grip sensor for detecting a user’s holding or grip thereon (FIG. 2; paragraph [0225]).
With regard to claim 1, Yoon teaches: wherein the terminal comprises a foldable screen, the foldable screen comprises a first screen and a second screen (FIG. 2; paragraph [0095]; display 230 is a foldable display including first [screen] area 231a and second [screen] area 231b. The areas 231a and 231b are interchangeable as first and second as will be more clearly set forth in the dependent claims);
the touch sensor arranged on a side bezel of the first screen (paragraph [0225], [0226]; the grip sensor detects a user’s touch and may be disposed on the left and right side surfaces. In other words, the grip sensor may be disposed on side bezels of the first [screen] area 231a and second [screen] area 231b); and
the touch parameter being of the second screen (FIGS. 1, 2; paragraphs [0065], [0080], [0081]; display 160/230 may include touch circuitry which detects touch applied to a surface thereof. This touch circuitry would detect touch parameters of any touches applied to the first [screen] area 231a and second [screen] area 231b);
wherein the gripping posture comprises single-sided gripping on first side (FIGS. 2, 22; paragraphs [0095], [0219], [0225]; the grip sensor may detect a user’s grip on only the first [screen] area 231a), single-sided gripping on second side (FIGS. 2, 21; paragraphs [0095], [0218], [0225]; the grip sensor may detect a user’s grip on only the second [screen] area 231b) or double-sided gripping (FIGS. 2, 23; paragraphs [0095], [0220], [0225]; the grip sensor may detect a user’s grip on both the first [screen] area 231a and the second [screen] area 231b);
wherein the single-sided gripping on first side refers to one side of the first screen being held by one hand (FIGS. 2, 22; paragraphs [0095], [0219], [0225]; the grip sensor may detect a user’s grip on only the first [screen] area 231a, i.e., a right hand grip); and
the single-sided gripping on second side refers to one side of the second screen being held by one hand (FIGS. 2, 21; paragraphs [0095], [0218], [0225]; the grip sensor may detect a user’s grip on only the second [screen] area 231b, i.e., a left hand grip).
Neither Kim nor Yoon individually disclose: wherein: whether the first screen is held is determined according to the first sensor data; whether the second screen is held is determined according to the touch parameter.
However, the combination of the Kim and Yoon teaches: wherein: whether the first screen is held is determined according to the first sensor data (Kim; FIGS. 2, 3; paragraph [0053]; whether a screen is held is determined according to the grip state [first sensor data] detected by grip sensor unit 20. When combined with Yoon, the grip state [first sensor data] would determine whether the first [screen] area 231a is held);
whether the second screen is held is determined according to the touch parameter (Kim; FIGS. 2, 3; paragraph [0055], [0097], [0098];whether a screen is held is determined according to the first touch signal [touch parameter] detected by touch sensor unit 30. When combined with Yoon, the first touch signal [touch parameter] would determine whether the second [screen] area 231b is held).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a handheld display device that determines a user’s grip based on a combination of data from a grip sensor and a touch sensor, as taught by Kim, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a foldable handheld display device a touch sensor corresponding to a first and a second screen and grip sensors disposed at side (bezel) surfaces thereof for determining a single or double hand grip, as taught by Yoon, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Kim and Yoon would yield the predictable result of a foldable handheld display device having two screens that determines a user’s grip based on a combination of data from a grip sensor and a touch sensor, where the grip sensors are disposed at side (bezel) surfaces thereof and differentiate between single or double hand grips. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the combined grip sensor and touch sensor grip detection process of Kim into the device of Yoon. Such a combination would result in the disclosure of Kim merely being applied to a foldable display device having two screens to differentiate between single or double hand grips. Put another way, it would have been obvious to utilize the combination of a grip sensor signal and touch sensor signal to determine the location of a user’s grip, as taught by Kim, into the foldable handheld display of Yoon so that the device of Yoon would be able to adjust the image display area based on a location of a user’s grip as determined by a combination of a grip sensor signal and a touch sensor signal, as taught by Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results.
Neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the determining the gripping posture of the terminal according to the difference and the touch area comprises: determining the gripping posture as the double-sided gripping in cases that the difference is greater than a set difference threshold and the touch area is greater than a set area threshold.
However, as set forth above, paragraph [0054] of Kim implies that when a user grips the apparatus 100A, the grip sensor changes from second sensor data to first sensor data. This change corresponds to difference between first and sensor data that indicates the apparatus has transitioned from an ungripped to a gripped state.
Additionally, it is well-known and conventional in the art that touch-based inputs may only be recognized when the corresponding touch signal change exceeds a predetermined threshold in order to avoid unintended touch inputs caused by noise.
When the teachings of Kim and Yoon are combined, the grip detection would operate in the following manner: a double-sided gripping would result in a right [first side] grip sensor detecting a difference greater than a threshold while a left [second side] touch sensor would detect a first signal that has a touch area greater than a threshold due to application of a touch. See FIG. 23 of Yoon.
Accordingly, the combination of Kim and Yoon, in view of well-known and conventional teachings in the art, would yield the above subject matter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches: an electronic device, applied to a terminal (FIG. 2; paragraph [0045]; apparatus 100A may be a mobile phone), wherein the electronic device comprises:
a processor (paragraph [0126]; processor); and
a memory configured to store a processor-executable instruction (paragraph [0126]; memory that stores program data);
wherein the processor is configured to perform operations (paragraph [0126]; the processor executes the program data to perform disclosed operations).
The remainder of this claim has the same scope as the subject matter rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, the remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program instruction, applied to a terminal, and the computer program instruction, when executed by a processor, implements steps (paragraphs [0126], [0127]; a processor executes program data stored on a non-transitory computer readable recording medium to perform disclosed operations).
The remainder of this claim has the same scope as the subject matter rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, the remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
Regarding claims 3 and 22, neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the determining the gripping posture of the terminal according to the difference and the touch area comprises: determining the gripping posture as the single-sided gripping on first side in cases that the difference is greater than a set difference threshold and the touch area is less than a set area threshold.
However, as set forth above with regard to claim 2, paragraph [0054] of Kim implies that when a user grips the apparatus 100A, the grip sensor changes from second sensor data to first sensor data. This change corresponds to difference between first and sensor data that indicates the apparatus has transitioned from an ungripped to a gripped state.
Additionally, it is well-known and conventional in the art that touch-based inputs may only be recognized when the corresponding touch signal change exceeds a predetermined threshold in order to avoid unintended touch inputs caused by noise.
When the teachings of Kim and Yoon are combined, the grip detection would operate in the following manner: a single-sided gripping on the right [first] side would result in a right [first side] grip sensor detecting a difference greater than a threshold while a left [second side] touch sensor would detect a first signal that has no touch area due to an absence of a touch. See FIG. 22 of Yoon.
Accordingly, the combination of Kim and Yoon, in view of well-known and conventional teachings in the art, would yield the subject matter of this claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the determining the gripping posture of the terminal according to the difference and the touch area comprises: determining the gripping posture as the single-sided gripping on second side in cases that the difference is less than a set difference threshold and the touch area is greater than a set area threshold.
However, as set forth above with regard to claim 2, paragraph [0054] of Kim implies that when a user grips the apparatus 100A, the grip sensor changes from second sensor data to first sensor data. This change corresponds to difference between first and sensor data that indicates the apparatus has transitioned from an ungripped to a gripped state.
Additionally, it is well-known and conventional in the art that touch-based inputs may only be recognized when the corresponding touch signal change exceeds a predetermined threshold in order to avoid unintended touch inputs caused by noise.
When the teachings of Kim and Yoon are combined, the grip detection would operate in the following manner: a single-sided gripping on the left [second] side would result in a right [first side] grip sensor detecting a difference less than a threshold while a left [second side] touch sensor would detect a first signal that has a touch area greater than a threshold due to application of a touch. See FIG. 21 of Yoon.
Accordingly, the combination of Kim and Yoon, in view of well-known and conventional teachings in the art, would yield the subject matter of this claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches: wherein the determining the touch area on the second screen according to the touch parameter comprises: obtaining, in a case that the touch parameter comprises at least one touch point coordinate, the touch area according to the at least one touch point coordinate (paragraphs [0056], [0064]; as set forth above with regard to claim 2, the first touch signal [touch parameter] may include touch location and touch area of the applied touch which corresponds to the touch location).
Regarding claim 8, Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first screen is a screen located on a right side when the foldable screen is unfolded, the second screen is a screen located on a left side when the foldable screen is unfolded, the single- sided gripping on first side is right-handed gripping, and the single-sided gripping on second side is left-handed gripping.
However, Yoon teaches: wherein the first screen is a screen located on a right side when the foldable screen is unfolded (FIG. 2; paragraph [0095]; first [screen] area 231a is located on the right side of electronic device 200 when unfolded), the second screen is a screen located on a left side when the foldable screen is unfolded (FIG. 2; paragraph [0095]; second [screen] area 231b is located on the right side of electronic device 200 when unfolded), the single-sided gripping on first side is right-handed gripping (FIGS. 2, 22; a user’s grip on only the first [screen] area 231a is right-handed gripping), and the single-sided gripping on second side is left-handed gripping (FIGS. 2, 21; a user’s grip on only the second [screen] area 231b is left-handed gripping).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches: wherein the determining the touch area on the second screen according to the touch parameter comprises: determining that the touch area is zero in a case that the touch parameter comprises no touch point coordinate (paragraph [0064]; as set forth above, the first touch signal [touch parameter] includes a location and area of a touch input when a touch is applied. When no touch is applied, there is no touch area and no touch location [coordinate]. This would occur in situations when a user grasps the apparatus 100A without touching a surface of display 40).
Regarding claim 17, Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first screen is a screen located on a left side when the foldable screen is unfolded, the second screen is a screen located on a right side when the foldable screen is unfolded, the single-sided gripping on first side is left-handed gripping, and the single-sided gripping on second side is right-handed gripping.
However, Yoon teaches: wherein the first screen is a screen located on a left side when the foldable screen is unfolded (FIG. 2; paragraph [0095]; for this claim, the area 231b is a “second screen” and is located on the left side of electronic device 200 when unfolded), the second screen is a screen located on a right side when the foldable screen is unfolded (FIG. 2; paragraph [0095]; for this claim, the area 231a is a “first screen” and is located on the right side of electronic device 200 when unfolded), the single-sided gripping on first side is left-handed gripping (FIGS. 2, 21; a user’s grip on only the “first screen” [area 231b] is left-handed gripping), and the single-sided gripping on second side is right-handed gripping (FIGS. 2, 22; a user’s grip on only the “second screen” [area 231a] is right-handed gripping).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Yoon to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
14. Claims 7, 15 – 16, and 19 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoon, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Li (U.S. Pub. 2018/0267573).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in a case that the gripping posture is the single-sided gripping on first side, display interfaces of the first screen and the second screen to display interface of a single-handed mode corresponding to the single-sided gripping on first side.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Li discloses a double-screen mobile device that differentiates between right-hand handheld state, left-hand handheld state, and double-hand handheld state (paragraphs [0073] – [0075]).
With regard to claims 7 and 19, Li teaches: wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in a case that the gripping posture is the single-sided gripping on first side, display interfaces of the first screen and the second screen to display interface of a single-handed mode corresponding to the single-sided gripping on first side (FIG. 8; paragraph [0073]; a first application having a higher operation frequency level than a second application may be displayed. When a user is gripping the device in a right-hand handheld state, the first application is relocated to the right screen and the second application is relocated to the left screen).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Li to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a foldable handheld display device having a left and right screens that determine a user’s grip based on a combination of data from a grip sensor and a touch sensor to differentiate between left-hand, right-hand, and double-hand grips, as taught by the combination of Kim and Yoon, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a double-screen mobile device that adjusts the location of displayed content according to whether the user is gripping the device with a right-hand, a left-hand, or both hands, as taught by Li, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Li would yield the predictable result of a foldable handheld display device having a left and right screens that determine a user’s grip based on a combination of data from a grip sensor and a touch sensor to differentiate between left-hand, right-hand, and double-hand grips, where a location of displayed content is adjusted depending on the detected grip. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the user interface adjustments of Li into the grip detection of the combination of Kim and Yoon. Such a combination merely incorporates a known user interface control, as taught by Li, in response to the grip detection of the combination of Kim and Yoon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Li to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in a case that the gripping posture is the single-sided gripping on second side, display interfaces of the first screen and the second screen to display interface of a single-handed mode corresponding to the single-sided gripping on second side.
However, Li teaches: wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in a case that the gripping posture is the single-sided gripping on second side, display interfaces of the first screen and the second screen to display interface of a single-handed mode corresponding to the single-sided gripping on second side (FIG. 8; paragraphs [0073], [0074]; a first application having a higher operation frequency level than a second application may be displayed. When a user is gripping the device in a left-hand handheld state, the first application is relocated to the left screen and the second application is relocated to the right screen).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Li to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 7 and 19.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in a case that the gripping posture is the double-sided gripping, display interfaces of the first screen and the second screen to display interface of a double-handed mode.
However, Li teaches: wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in a case that the gripping posture is the double-sided gripping, display interfaces of the first screen and the second screen to display interface of a double-handed mode (paragraph [0065], [0066]; when a user is gripping the device in a double-hand handheld state, the target application interface is switched onto a first screen according to the double-hand handheld state. Any non-target application interfaces would switch to the second screen, similar to the operations set forth above with regard to claims 7, 15, and 19 – 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Li to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 7 and 19.
15. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoon, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Tao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0169340).
Regarding claim 9, neither Kim nor Yoon explicitly disclose: wherein the touch sensor comprises a specific absorption rate (SAR) sensor, and the first sensor data is a specific absorption rate.
However, Tao teaches: wherein the touch sensor comprises a specific absorption rate (SAR) sensor, and the first sensor data is a specific absorption rate (paragraph [0054]; a capacitive touch sensor interface 300 includes a SAR engine 360. Accordingly, data generated by the interface 300 would include SAR, i.e., a specific absorption rate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Tao to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a display device that determines a user’s grip based, in part, on a touch-based grip sensor, as taught by Kim, is known. Additionally, the teachings of a touch sensor that utilizes specific absorption rate for touch detection, as taught by Tao, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Tao would yield the predictable result of a display device that determines a user’s grip based, in part, on a grip sensor that includes a touch sensor that utilizes specific absorption rate for touch detection. In other words, it would have been obvious simply substitute the specific type of touch sensor of Tao for the generic touch-based grip sensor of Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim, Yoon, and Tao to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626