Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 claims a velocity peak and a velocity duration. However, these terms are not defined. The meaning of the claim is indefinite because it isn’t clear how to give the claim any meaningful scope. The velocity peak and the velocity duration could reasonably be interpreted to always overlap because each peak has to have a duration. Without a deeper or narrower meaning there’s no way to characterize the claim in a way such that a prior art reference wouldn’t automatically anticipate the limitation so long as it has some sort of peak. Since the literal meaning of the claim is effectively meaningless it requires the reader to speculatively guess what the intended scope might be. The claim is therefore indefinite. Claim 17 has the same issue as claim 7 owing to velocity peak height and velocity peak duration. Claim 17 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 1 recites a controller configured to “apply a gain factor”. This term in the context is very unclear. Is applicant just trying to claim the concept of proportionality such as the claim language “being proportional to an angular velocity”? Or is applicant trying to claim an application of a voltage jump per the electrical definition of gain factor? Or is applicant is trying to claim the concept of a multiplication factor applied to the input from the rotatory line to some output? In example does the controller have to take an input and provide an output adjusted to the gain factor? Is the concept tied to a single gain factor? I.e. it applies “a” (singular) gain factor, or is applicant merely trying to claim some none 1:1 proportional relationship? I.e. is the adjustment merely occur inside the controller? Does it matter if the system actually saves a value for the gain factor and multiplies it? Or would the mere proportionality be sufficient to anticipate the claim(s)? Also how could a system not always have a gain factor? A rotary crown is rotational. There is not linear equivalency. So if the digital output would always have to have a gain factor in order to be operable, unless the display was circular with a direct correlation to the crown. I.e. a digital display would have to correspond to the rotatory crown input 1:1 in order to not have a gain factor. As a whole the concept is very difficult to ascertain in terms of definite scope even speculatively. The application does not provide sufficient explanation for the term to make sense. Claim 1 is indefinite because the reader must speculatively interpret the claim to ascertain the intended meaning.
Independent claim 11 similarly recites applying, via the controller, a gain factor to the rotational input”. Claim 11 thus has the same defect. Claim 11 is therefore indefinite.Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from either claims 1 or 11 and thus are rejected on the basis of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambetti (US 2020/0110522) in view of Hoover (US 2013/0258819).
With regard to claim 1 Zambetti discloses a wearable computing device, comprising:
an outer covering (top layer of 106 figure 1);
a housing (102);
an electronic display screen (106) arranged within the housing and viewable through the outer covering;
a rotary crown (108) positioned on a side of the electronic display screen (figure 1), the rotary crown configured to receive a rotational input (paragraph 24); and
at least one controller (202 figure 2) communicatively coupled to the rotary crown (108 figure 2), wherein the at least one controller is configured to apply a proportionality to the rotational input to generate a digital output for the electronic display screen (abstract, paragraph 36), the proportionality being proportional to an angular velocity of the rotational input (abstract, paragraph 36).
While Zambetti uses the term proportional several times there is no clear and explicit disclosure of a gain factor. Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Zambetti’s system to comprise controller is configured to apply a gain factor to the rotational input to generate a digital output for the electronic display screen, the gain factor being proportional to an angular velocity of the rotational input.
Hoover discloses “proportionality coefficient 701 is multiplied by impulse frequency 401 to determine a virtual torque value” – paragraph 27. Hoover discloses “virtual torque value 401′, virtual torque value 703″ is obtained by multiplying the simulated angular velocity 703 by a proportionality coefficient 702, called the fluid friction coefficient” paragraph 30. Hoover shows that it is known in the art to use a multiplication value to set a proportionality coefficient of an input relative to a desired output.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Zambetti’s system to comprise a controller is configured to apply a gain factor to the rotational input to generate a digital output for the electronic display screen, the gain factor being proportional to an angular velocity of the rotational input, as taught by Hoover. The reason for doing so would have been to set an input to a desired proportional output as taught by Zambetti and Hoover. A reason for doing so would have been to translate a rotational input into a meaningful linear output for a display.
With regard to claim 2 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the gain factor causes a relationship between the rotational input and the digital output to be non-linear (paragraph 36).
With regard to claim 3 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the rotational input comprises a number of angular degrees moved by the rotary crown at a certain angular velocity (angle paragraphs 7, 27, 36)
With regard to claim 4 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein increasing the angular velocity of the rotational input is configured to accelerate an amount of scroll on the electronic display screen in one-dimensional rotation (abstract, paragraphs 35, 36, 99)
With regard to claim 5 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein decreasing the angular velocity of the rotational input allows for a more fine-tuned scroll on the electronic display screen in one-dimensional rotation (abstract, paragraphs 35, 36, 99).
With regard to claim 6 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein, when the rotational input of the rotary crown comprises a flick, the digital output corresponds to discrete incremental movements on the electronic display screen (paragraph 99).
With regard to claim 7 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 6, wherein the flick is characterized by a velocity peak duration and a velocity peak height occurring at the same time (equation 1.1 paragraph 62 as explained in paragraph 63. Paragraph 99 describes the flick. Applicant’s specification describes this claim limitation as referring to figure 8. It would follow by the definition that the width of the velocity corresponds to the peak of the flick. Equation 1.1 gives one solution provided by the reference that reasonably corresponds to the graph and the BRI of the claim limitations.)
With regard to claim 8 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 6, wherein the flick is an upward movement or a downward movement with respect to the electronic display screen (paragraphs 38, 39, 99)
With regard to claim 9 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein applying the gain factor to the rotational input further comprises multiplying the gain factor to the rotational input (“proportional” abstract, see also modification of the parent claim).
With regard to claim 10 Zambetti and Hoover teach the wearable computing device of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor for detecting the angular velocity of the rotational input (paragraph 24)
With regard to claim 11 Zambetti discloses a method for providing a non-linear (paragraph 36) mapping of a rotational input of a rotary crown (108) and a digital output (106) of a wearable computing device (title) to improve a scrolling experience of the wearable computing device (abstract), the method comprising: receiving, via a controller (202) of the wearable computing device, a rotational input of the rotary crown (abstract, paragraph 36), the rotary crown positioned on a side of an electronic display screen of the wearable computing device (108 figure 1); applying, via the controller, a proportionality to the rotational input to determine a modified rotational input (abstract, paragraph 36), the proportionality being proportional to an angular velocity of the rotational input (abstract, paragraph 36); and generating the digital output for the electronic display screen based on the modified rotational input (abstract, paragraph 36; figure 3)
While Zambetti uses the term proportional several times there is no clear and explicit disclosure of a gain factor. Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Zambetti’s system to comprise controller is configured to apply a gain factor to the rotational input to generate a digital output for the electronic display screen, the gain factor being proportional to an angular velocity of the rotational input.
Hoover discloses “proportionality coefficient 701 is multiplied by impulse frequency 401 to determine a virtual torque value” – paragraph 27. Hoover discloses “virtual torque value 401′, virtual torque value 703″ is obtained by multiplying the simulated angular velocity 703 by a proportionality coefficient 702, called the fluid friction coefficient” paragraph 30. Hoover shows that it is known in the art to use a multiplication value to set a proportionality coefficient of an input relative to a desired output.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Zambetti’s system to comprise applying, via the controller, a gain factor to the rotational input to determine a modified rotational input, the gain factor being proportional to an angular velocity of the rotational input; and generating the digital output for the electronic display screen based on the modified rotational input, as taught by Hoover. The reason for doing so would have been to set an input to a desired proportional output as taught by Zambetti and Hoover. A reason for doing so would have been to translate a rotational input into a meaningful linear output for a display.
With regard to claim 12 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, wherein the gain factor causes a relationship between the rotational input and the digital output to be non-linear (paragraph 36)
With regard to claim 13 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, wherein the rotational input comprises a number of angular degrees moved by the rotary crown at a certain angular velocity (angle paragraphs 7, 27, 36).
With regard to claim 14 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, wherein increasing the angular velocity of the rotational input is configured to accelerate an amount of scroll on the electronic display screen in one-dimensional rotation (abstract, paragraphs 35, 36, 99).
With regard to claim 15 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, wherein decreasing the angular velocity of the rotational input allows for a more fine-tuned scroll on the electronic display screen in one-dimensional rotation (abstract, paragraphs 35, 36, 99).
With regard to claim 16 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, wherein, when the rotational input of the rotary crown comprises a flick, the digital output corresponds to discrete incremental movements on the electronic display screen (paragraph 99).
With regard to claim 17 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 16, wherein the flick is characterized by a velocity peak duration and a velocity peak height occurring at the same time (equation 1.1 paragraph 62 as explained in paragraph 63. Paragraph 99 describes the flick. Applicant’s specification describes this claim limitation as referring to figure 8. It would follow by the definition that the width of the velocity corresponds to the peak of the flick. Equation 1.1 gives one solution provided by the reference that reasonably corresponds to the graph and the BRI of the claim limitations.)
With regard to claim 18 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 16, wherein the flick is an upward movement or a downward movement with respect to the electronic display screen (paragraphs 38, 39, 99).
With regard to claim 19 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, wherein applying the gain factor to the rotational input further comprises multiplying the gain factor to the rotational input (“proportional” abstract, see also modification of the parent claim).
With regard to claim 20 Zambetti and Hoover teach the method of claim 11, further comprising detecting, via at least one sensor, the angular velocity of the rotational input (paragraph 24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chambon US 4445785 teaches a fast time correction mode.
Will US 5477508 teaches a selector wheel and scrolling operations.
Ruh US 20170089735 teaches non-linear crown inputs.
Zambetti US 12050766 teaches non-linear crown inputs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN KAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-8931. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/SEAN KAYES/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights