Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
A Preliminary Amendment filed April 7, 2025, has been entered, with amendments to the specification, and to the claims.
After entry of the Preliminary Amendment, claims 1-18 are presented for consideration and examination.
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
Double Patenting – Non-Statutory
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,849 B2 to Chaudhri et el. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of at least the following comparison:
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,849 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, in the application, the subject matter is concerning unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image. Whereas, in the issued patent, the subject matter is the subject matter is concerning unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, an independent method device, is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,849 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the majority of sections appearing verbatim in both claims.
Similarly, claim 17, an independent non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth below.
Similarly, claim 18, an independent method claim, recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, or 17, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth below.
Instant Application Patent 7,657,849 B2
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a display device;
an input device;
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting a user input via the input device; and
in response to the detected user input via the input device, displaying a visual cue via the display device of a predefined gesture required to unlock the electronic device to a user-interface active state.
12. A portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive display;
memory;
one or more processors; and
one or more modules stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more modules including instructions:
to set the device to a user-interface lock state;
to display an unlock image on the touch-sensitive display while the device is in the user-interface lock state, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user- interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device;
to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display;
to move the unlock image along a predefined displayed path on the touch- sensitive display in accordance with the contact;
to transition the device to a user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and
to maintain the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0253817 A1 to Rytivaara et al. (hereinafter Rytivaara).
With regards to claim 1, Rytivaara discloses:
1. (Original) An electronic device, comprising:
a display device (see, Fig. 1A, item 104, and detailed description, including, FIG. 1A shows a block diagram of the structure of a portable electronic device. The basic functions of the device are controlled by a control unit 100, typically implemented by means of a microprocessor and software or separate components. The user interface of the device comprises a display 104 and a contact surface 102, which together form a touch screen 106, para. 0016);
an input device (see, as above, Fig. 1A, and The user interface of the device comprises a display 104 and a contact surface 102, which together form a touch screen 106, para. 0016);
one or more processors (see, Fig 1A, and the detailed description, including, a control unit 100, typically implemented by a microprocessor, para. 0016); and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (see, Fig. 1A, and detailed description, including, wherein the touch screen lock can be deactivated by touching predetermined contact areas in a given order. In practice, touching said reset area when the touch screen is locked results in the software in the control unit memory detecting it as a predetermined reset area, para. 0021), the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting a user input via the input device (see, detailed description, including, detecting touches on predetermined contact areas on the touch screen in a given order during touch screen lock and for deactivating the touch screen lock once touches on the predetermined contact areas are detected, para. 0005); and
in response to the detected user input via the input device, displaying a visual cue via the display device of a predefined gesture required to unlock the electronic device to a user-interface active state (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, In step 200, the touch screen lock of the device is activated, whereby on the touch screen may be shown a symbol or text indicative of the lock, and it is checked if the touching is directed to a predetermined contact area, step 206, confirms correctly performed touch detected, and step 208, confirms all predetermined touches are detected in the right order and of a suitable length as specified to be performed in the user profiles of the device, a predetermined gesture, and at step 201, the screen lock is deactivated, para. 0026).
With regards to claim 2, Rytivaara discloses:
2. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein detecting the user input via the input device includes detecting a hand input (see, detailed description, continuous electric current, which is generated between the films when the outer film is pressed with a finger or another object against the lower film, a finger is interpreted as part of a hand, para. 0017).
With regards to claim 3, Rytivaara discloses:
3. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predefined gesture includes a hand gesture input (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, and step 208, confirms all predetermined touches are detected in the right order and of a suitable length as specified to be performed in the user profiles of the device, a predetermined gesture, and at step 201, the screen lock is deactivated, para. 0026).
With regards to claim 11, Rytivaara discloses:
11. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the visual cue includes an animation related to the predefined gesture (see, detailed description, including, a contact area can be specified for example such that when an animation is visible on the touch screen 320, a point specified as a contact area has to be touched at a predetermined point in time, para. 0037).
With regards to claim 13, Rytivaara discloses:
13. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the user-interface active state allows access only to a specific application (see, detailed description, including, An image of the keys of a piano, for example, could be shown on the touch screen 320, and the contact areas can be specified to be located at given piano keys visible on the touch screen, para. 0038).
With regards to claim 15, Rytivaara discloses:
15. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the display device is in a powered down state prior to displaying the visual cue (see, detailed description, including, The user profiles may specify the way of action of the touch screen lock or screensaver, such as how long the device has to be unused until the screensaver is activated or if a password has to be input when the screensaver is to be deactivated. The locations of the contact areas to be touched in a state enabling the deactivation of the touch screen lock are specified in the user profiles of the device, for example. It is also feasible to specify several different contact areas and combinations thereof, para. 0023).
16. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the display device includes a touch-sensitive display (see, Fig. 1A, and detailed description, including, which together form a touch screen 106, para. 0016).
With regard to claim 17, claim 17 (a non-transitory computer-readable memory claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a device/apparatus claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a device/apparatus claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 4-10, 12, 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0253817 A1 to Rytivaara et al. (hereinafter Rytivaara) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0162965 A1 to Fukuda et al. (hereinafter Fukuda).
With regard to claim 4, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
4. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein displaying the visual cue via the display device includes displaying an unlock image while the electronic device is in a user-interface lock state, and wherein the predefined gesture is a gesture performed with respect to the unlock image to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state.
Fukuda discloses:
displaying the visual cue via the display device includes displaying an unlock image while the electronic device is in a user-interface lock state, and wherein the predefined gesture is a gesture performed with respect to the unlock image to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, Fig. 7, referring to flowchart that depicts an interaction between the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 and the access control apparatus 100 serving as the WEB server, transmitting an Exit image, as an unlock image for removing the access restriction, to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d5). The access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 that receives the request selects the unlock image by the above-stated viewing user's operation and transmits the unlock image to the access control apparatus 100 (at steps c6, c7, and c8). If the user does not select the unlock image, the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 is not permitted to view the original image and the processing returns to the display of the list of thumbnail images (at the step c4) para. 0058-0059, and 0069).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, displaying the visual cue via the display device includes displaying an unlock image while the electronic device is in a user-interface lock state, and wherein the predefined gesture is a gesture performed with respect to the unlock image to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, Fig. 7, referring to flowchart that depicts an interaction between the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 and the access control apparatus 100 serving as the WEB server, transmitting an Exit image, as an unlock image for removing the access restriction, to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d5). The access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 that receives the request selects the unlock image by the above-stated viewing user's operation and transmits the unlock image to the access control apparatus 100 (at steps c6, c7, and c8). If the user does not select the unlock image, the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 is not permitted to view the original image and the processing returns to the display of the list of thumbnail images (at the step c4) para. 0058-0059, and 0069).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art1.
With regard to claim 5, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
5. (Original) The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the predefined gesture includes dragging the unlock image to a predefined location.
Fukuda discloses:
the predefined gesture includes dragging the unlock image to a predefined location (see, detailed description, including, in addition, although not shown here, it is possible for the viewing user to finish the software for viewing the image as the application software in the state of the display of the list of thumbnail images, and then to move to television viewing, other application software, or the like, or to turn off the power, with move being interpreted as a dragging operation, para. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, the predefined gesture includes dragging the unlock image to a predefined location (see, detailed description, including, in addition, although not shown here, it is possible for the viewing user to finish the software for viewing the image as the application software in the state of the display of the list of thumbnail images, and then to move to television viewing, other application software, or the like, or to turn off the power, with move being interpreted as a dragging operation, para. 0068).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art2.
With regard to claim 6, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
6. (Original) The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the predefined gesture includes moving the unlock image along a predefined path via the display device.
Rytivaara in view of Fukuda discloses:
the predefined gesture includes moving the unlock image along a predefined path via the display device (see, detailed description, including, (see, detailed description, including, detecting touches on predetermined contact areas on the touch screen in a given order during touch screen lock and for deactivating the touch screen lock once touches on the predetermined contact areas are detected, para. 0005).
Rytivaara in view of Fukuda discloses:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, the predefined gesture includes moving the unlock image along a predefined path via the display device (see, detailed description, including, (see, detailed description, including, detecting touches on predetermined contact areas on the touch screen in a given order during touch screen lock and for deactivating the touch screen lock once touches on the predetermined contact areas are detected, para. 0005).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art3.
With regard to claim 7, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
7. (Original) The electronic device of claim 4, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image; and
in response to detecting the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image, unlocking the electronic device to the user-interface active state.
Rytivaara in view of Fukuda discloses:
the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image (see, detailed description, including, detecting touches, also interpreted as a gesture, on predetermined contact areas on the touch screen in a given order during touch screen lock and for deactivating the touch screen lock once touches on the predetermined contact areas are detected, para. 0005); and
in response to detecting the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image, unlocking the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, In step 200, the touch screen lock of the device is activated, whereby on the touch screen may be shown a symbol or text indicative of the lock, and it is checked if the touching (also interpreted as a gesture) is directed to a predetermined contact area, step 206, confirms correctly performed touch detected, and step 208, confirms all predetermined touches are detected in the right order and of a suitable length as specified to be performed in the user profiles of the device, a predetermined gesture, and at step 201, the screen lock is deactivated, para. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image (see, detailed description, including, detecting touches, also interpreted as a gesture, on predetermined contact areas on the touch screen in a given order during touch screen lock and for deactivating the touch screen lock once touches on the predetermined contact areas are detected, para. 0005); and
in response to detecting the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image, unlocking the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, In step 200, the touch screen lock of the device is activated, whereby on the touch screen may be shown a symbol or text indicative of the lock, and it is checked if the touching (also interpreted as a gesture) is directed to a predetermined contact area, step 206, confirms correctly performed touch detected, and step 208, confirms all predetermined touches are detected in the right order and of a suitable length as specified to be performed in the user profiles of the device, a predetermined gesture, and at step 201, the screen lock is deactivated, para. 0026).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art4.
8. (Original) The electronic device of claim 7, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
providing visual feedback of completion of the gesture required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, detailed description, including, step 206, confirms correctly performed touch detected, and step 208, confirms all predetermined touches are detected in the right order and of a suitable length as specified to be performed in the user profiles of the device, a predetermined gesture, and at step 201, the screen lock is deactivated, para. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, providing visual feedback of completion of the gesture required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, detailed description, including, step 206, confirms correctly performed touch detected, and step 208, confirms all predetermined touches are detected in the right order and of a suitable length as specified to be performed in the user profiles of the device, a predetermined gesture, and at step 201, the screen lock is deactivated, para. 0026).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art5.
With regard to claim 9, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
9. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the displayed unlock image is a first unlock image, wherein the predefined gesture is a first predefined gesture, and wherein the user-interface active state is a first user-interface active state, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
displaying a second unlock image via the display device while the electronic device is in [[a]] the user-interface lock state, wherein a second predefined gesture performed via the display device with respect to the second unlock image will unlock the electronic device to a second user-interface active state that is different from the first user-interface active state.
Fukuda discloses:
the displayed unlock image is a first unlock image, wherein the predefined gesture is a first predefined gesture, and wherein the user-interface active state is a first user-interface active state, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
displaying a second unlock image via the display device while the electronic device is in [[a]] the user-interface lock state, wherein a second predefined gesture performed via the display device with respect to the second unlock image will unlock the electronic device to a second user-interface active state that is different from the first user-interface active state (see, detailed description, including the access control apparatus 100 transmits the requested original image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d8). The digital television set 202 that receives the original image displays the original image on the display (at steps c9 and c10), If the viewing user finishes viewing the image, the processing returns to television viewing and the power of the digital television set 202 is turned off (at steps c11 and 12). If the viewing user does not finish viewing the image, the processing returns to the display of the list of thumbnail images (at the step c4). In addition, although not shown here, it is possible for the viewing user to finish the software for viewing the image as the application software in the state of the display of the list of thumbnail images, and then to move to television viewing, other application software, or the like, or to turn off the power, para. 0068.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, wherein the predefined gesture is a first predefined gesture, and wherein the user-interface active state is a first user-interface active state, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
displaying a second unlock image via the display device while the electronic device is in [[a]] the user-interface lock state, wherein a second predefined gesture performed via the display device with respect to the second unlock image will unlock the electronic device to a second user-interface active state that is different from the first user-interface active state (see, detailed description, including the access control apparatus 100 transmits the requested original image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d8). The digital television set 202 that receives the original image displays the original image on the display (at steps c9 and c10), If the viewing user finishes viewing the image, the processing returns to television viewing and the power of the digital television set 202 is turned off (at steps c11 and 12). If the viewing user does not finish viewing the image, the processing returns to the display of the list of thumbnail images (at the step c4). In addition, although not shown here, it is possible for the viewing user to finish the software for viewing the image as the application software in the state of the display of the list of thumbnail images, and then to move to television viewing, other application software, or the like, or to turn off the power, para. 0068.
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art6.
With regard to claim 10, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
10. (Original) The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the second unlock image is displayed in response to an event received by the electronic device, and wherein the second user-interface active state unlocks the electronic device only for an application associated with the received event.
Fukuda discloses:
wherein the second unlock image is displayed in response to an event received by the electronic device, and wherein the second user-interface active state unlocks the electronic device only for an application associated with the received event (see, as above claim 9, and although not shown here, it is possible for the viewing user to finish the software for viewing the image as the application software in the state of the display of the list of thumbnail images, and then to move to television viewing, other application software, or the like, or to turn off the power, para. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, wherein the second unlock image is displayed in response to an event received by the electronic device, and wherein the second user-interface active state unlocks the electronic device only for an application associated with the received event (see, as above claim 9, and although not shown here, it is possible for the viewing user to finish the software for viewing the image as the application software in the state of the display of the list of thumbnail images, and then to move to television viewing, other application software, or the like, or to turn off the power, para. 0068).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art7.
With regard to claim 12, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
12. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the visual cue indicates at least a portion of unlock criteria required for a gesture to unlock the electronic device, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
after displaying the visual cue via the display device, detecting a gesture via the display device; and
in response to detecting the gesture:
in accordance with a determination that the gesture meets the unlock criteria, unlocking the electronic device; and
in accordance with a determination that the gesture does not meet the unlock criteria, maintaining the electronic device in a user-interface lock state.
Fukuda discloses:
wherein the visual cue indicates at least a portion of unlock criteria required for a gesture to unlock the electronic device, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
after displaying the visual cue via the display device, detecting a gesture via the display device; and
in response to detecting the gesture:
in accordance with a determination that the gesture meets the unlock criteria, unlocking the electronic device; and
in accordance with a determination that the gesture does not meet the unlock criteria, maintaining the electronic device in a user-interface lock state (see, detailed description, including, The access control apparatus 100 that receives the unlock image determines whether to give an access permission to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 by the access restriction removal determining method to be described later (at steps d6 and d7). If the access control apparatus 100 determines to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits the original image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d8). If the access control apparatus 100 determines not to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits again the request of transmitting the unlock image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at the step d5) para. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, wherein the visual cue indicates at least a portion of unlock criteria required for a gesture to unlock the electronic device, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
after displaying the visual cue via the display device, detecting a gesture via the display device; and
in response to detecting the gesture:
in accordance with a determination that the gesture meets the unlock criteria, unlocking the electronic device; and
in accordance with a determination that the gesture does not meet the unlock criteria, maintaining the electronic device in a user-interface lock state (see, detailed description, including, The access control apparatus 100 that receives the unlock image determines whether to give an access permission to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 by the access restriction removal determining method to be described later (at steps d6 and d7). If the access control apparatus 100 determines to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits the original image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d8). If the access control apparatus 100 determines not to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits again the request of transmitting the unlock image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at the step d5) para. 0070).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art8.
With regard to claim 14, Rytivaara fails to explicitly disclose:
14. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting a gesture via the input device;
determining that the gesture fails to meet criteria required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state; and
providing visual feedback of failure to complete the gesture required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state.
Fukuda discloses:
the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting a gesture via the input device;
determining that the gesture fails to meet criteria required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state; and
providing visual feedback of failure to complete the gesture required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, detailed description, including, The access control apparatus 100 that receives the unlock image determines whether to give an access permission to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 by the access restriction removal determining method to be described later (at steps d6 and d7). If the access control apparatus 100 determines to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits the original image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d8). If the access control apparatus 100 determines not to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits again the request of transmitting the unlock image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at the step d5) para. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Rytivaara with Fukuda before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Fukuda, with Rytivaara, including, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting a gesture via the input device;
determining that the gesture fails to meet criteria required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state; and
providing visual feedback of failure to complete the gesture required to unlock the electronic device to the user-interface active state (see, detailed description, including, The access control apparatus 100 that receives the unlock image determines whether to give an access permission to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 by the access restriction removal determining method to be described later (at steps d6 and d7). If the access control apparatus 100 determines to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits the original image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at a step d8). If the access control apparatus 100 determines not to give the access permission, the access control apparatus 100 transmits again the request of transmitting the unlock image to the access restriction removal-side digital television set 202 (at the step d5) para. 0070).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art9.
A sampling of the prior art made of record and not relied upon and considered
pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure includes: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0156016A1 to Tanaka that discusses: A session initiating method includes specifying an icon image corresponding to a user; determining whether start information is embedded in the icon image; extracting the start information from the icon image based on an algorithm that is unique to the user when it is determined that the start information is embedded in the icon image; setting-up the session; inputting the start information during the session; verifying whether the start information input at the inputting satisfies a condition for initiating the session; and controlling the session based on a result of the verifying. When it is verified that the start information satisfies the condition, the controlling includes initiating the session, and when it is not verified that the start information satisfies the condition, the controlling includes aborting the session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (M-F).
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, Stephen C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 7-10-2026
1 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
2 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
3 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
4 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
5 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
6 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
7 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
8 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
9 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
Prosecution Insights