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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claims 2, 4, and 6-20, cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 5, and addition of claims 21-23 are acknowledged.
The amendments to claims 2, 4, and 6-20 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of these claims and these rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 2 and 7 remove the claims from 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. The limitation “a tangible-type operation detector configured to detect a first input operation generated by at least one of a pressing operation and a rotating operation by a user” recited by both of these claims requires sufficient structural functions such that the claims no longer necessitate means plus function claim interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/26, with respect to amended claim 7 not being anticipated or obvious over the cited references have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 14, it recites “the bezel is configured to movable between” and this amendment appears to be missing the word “be” following “configured to” so that the amended limitation recites “the bezel is configured to be movable between” like that recited in claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites the limitation “cover is configured to be in a third position; and in a situation that the cover is in the third position, neither input operations are received, the first input operation through the operation detector nor the second input operation through the motion detector.” This limitation contradicts what is required by previous limitations of claim 7 and makes it impossible to achieve all of the limitations claimed.
Claim 7 requires that “the cover is configured to be movable between a first position and a second position” and “in a situation that the cover is in the first position, the at least one processor is configured to receive an input operation signal generated by the operation detector”.
The cover must always be in a third position according to claim 17 reciting “configured to be in a third position”. While this third position doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive with the first and second positions it does require no input from the operation detector. However, claim 7 requires that the cover is movable into the first position in which the processor does receive the input operation signal from the operation detector. The cover cannot be both in the third position which doesn’t allow for input operations from the operation detector and able to move into the first position which requires input operations from the operation detector.
Claim 17 therefore contains subject matter not described in a manner to makes/use the invention due to the contradicting limitations rendering the claim impossible.
Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and is rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites the limitation “cover is configured to be in a third position; and in a situation that the cover is in the third position, neither input operations are received, the first input operation through the operation detector nor the second input operation through the motion detector.” This limitation contradicts what is required by previous limitations of claim 4 and makes it impossible to achieve all of the limitations claimed.
Claim 4 requires “the at least one processor is configured to receive the first input operation detected by the operation detector and the second input operation detected by the motion detector”.
The cover must always be in a third position according to claim 18 reciting “configured to be in a third position”. While this third position doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive with the first and second positions, it does require that no input operations are received. However, claim 4 requires that the processor is configured to receive both first input operations and second input operations. The cover cannot be both always in the third position which doesn’t allow for input operations and also be able to receive the input operations.
Claim 18 therefore contains subject matter not described in a manner to makes/use the invention due to the contradicting limitations rendering the claim impossible.
Claim 20 depends from claim 17 and is rejected therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites the limitation “further comprising a display” and it is not clearly defined if this is the same limitation as the display introduced in claim 7 or a separate limitation. Either proper use of antecedent basis or a clear distinction between these limitations is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, and 21-23 are allowed.
Claim 9 depends from claim 7 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 2, prior art does not disclose or suggest, taken alone or in combination, a wrist device that includes a processor meeting the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on whether the tangible-type operation detector is exposed from the cover or not, switch between receiving and not receiving the second input operation detected by the motion detector” in addition to having both the tangible-type operation detector for a first input operation and a motion detector for a detecting the second input operation.
Ichikawa et al. (US 20180356861 A1) discloses a wrist device (100b) comprising: an operation detector (start/stop button) [0050] that detects an input operation; a motion detector (32) that detects an input operation; a cover (10) [0026]; and at least one processor (1) [0040]. However, Ichikawa does not disclose that the processor switches between receiving and not receiving the second input operation based on whether the tangible-type operation detector is exposed from the cover or not. Additional prior art does not provide sufficient motivation to include this claimed feature for the processor in the invention to include this switching process which also inherently requires determination of whether the operation detector is exposed or not in making its determination.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 22 depend from claim 2 and are allowable therein.
Regarding Claim 7, prior art does not disclose or suggest, taken alone or in combination, a wrist device including all of the claimed operation detector, cover, motion detector, first input operation, and second input operation components and also meeting the limitations “in a situation that the operation detector is exposed from the cover, not receive the second input operation detected by the motion detector” and “in a situation that the cover is in the first position, the at least one processor is configured to receive an input operation signal generated by the operation detector, and the display is configured to indicate that the input operation through the motion detector is not received”.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 21, and 23 depend from claim 7 and are allowable therein.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights