DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Publication 2010/0229117) in view of Gajulapally (U.S. Publication 2023/0342160) and Ryu (U.S. Publication 2017/0075305).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses an electronic device, comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (fig. 1, element 120; p. 2, section 0026); a display (fig. 1, element 130; p. 2, sections 0024-0025); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and the display (p. 2, sections 0024-0026; the controller is a processor running programs to output to the display),
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
execute an application related to a system user interface (figs. 2-3; p. 2, section 0026; a system OS application is used to boot a portable phone UI),
control the display to display a first screen indicating initialization through the application (fig. 3, element 32; p. 2, sections 0025-0026; a start screen is shown with a progress bar to indicate initialization of the system OS),
generate an image while performing the initialization and control the display to display the first screen and a second screen including the image (fig. 3, element 31; p. 2, sections 0025-0028; an image communicating currently valid information is produced as a second screen and displayed with the start image, which is the first screen),
and based on completion of the initialization, control the display to remove the first screen and display the second screen (p. 2, section 0025; p. 3, section 0031; p. 3, section 0034; the start image/1st screen is displayed only during booting time, but the valid information image/2nd screen can be displayed for a certain time after booting as well).
Lee does not disclose, but Gajulapally discloses that the system user interface (UI) is in a locked state and switching the locked state to an unlocked state while performing the initialization (fig. 5a; p. 5, section 0063; p. 5, section 0071-p. 6, section 0073; p. 6, sections 0084-0086; the user interface stays in a locked state during booting, but can unlock after booting finishes as part of initializing the interface). The motivation for this is to disallow access to some files and applications, improving security. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to have the system user interface be in a locked state and switch the locked state to an unlocked state while performing the initialization in order to disallow access to some files and applications, improving security as taught by Gajulapally.
Lee does not disclose but Ryu discloses that the image is related to a watchface (fig. 11b; p. 9, section 0138; p. 15, sections 0192-0197; p. 16, sections 0219-0225; a watchface is modified and overlaid with another application and the watchface is displayed alone after the application ends). The motivation for this is to communicate time to a user, but also application information in a manner more convenient than through a mobile phone (p. 1, sections 0008-0009). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and Gajulapally to display an image related to a watchface as one of the screens in order to communicate time to a user, but also application information in a manner more convenient than through a mobile phone as taught by Ryu.
As to claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to control a first application module included in a software module stored in the memory to process a process for displaying the first screen, performing the initialization, and executing the application (p. 2, sections 0026-0027; the process is performed in an application module as part of software stored in memory).
As to claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to control a second application module included in the software module to process a process for displaying the second screen, and wherein the second application module processes a process related to execution of the image and includes at least one module related to the image (p. 2, sections 0026-0027; the process is performed in an application module as part of software stored in memory; a second application module processes the valid information image). Lee does not disclose, but Ryu discloses wherein the image is a watchface image, as noted in the rejection to claim 1. Motivation for the combination is similar to that given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 8, see the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 14, see the rejection to claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 9-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gajulapally and Ryu and further in view of Park (U.S. Publication 2020/0301641).
As to claim 2, Lee does not disclose, but Park discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to set each of a number of frames per second of the application and a number of frames per second of the watchface to a first value after starting the initialization (p. 5, section 0069; p. 21, section 0249; a first application and a second application, one of which can be a watch, the display of which would inherently have an associated face, are set to be a particular number of frames per second, for example an fps corresponding to 100% or max, after initialization on a first screen), and control the display to display each of the first screen and the second screen at the number of frames per second of the first value during a first time period after starting the initialization (p. 21, sections 0248-0249; both the watch application screen and the other application screen are controlled to run at the 100% frames per second level during a time after the display has been initiated by unfolding). The motivation for this is to run front surface applications at full performance while allowing other applications to run at reduced performance (p. 21-22, section 0255). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee, Gajulapally, and Ryu to set each of a number of frames per second of the application and a number of frames per second of the watchface to a first value after starting the initialization, and control the display to display each of the first screen and the second screen at the number of frames per second of the first value during a first time period after starting the initialization in order to run front surface applications at full performance while allowing other applications to run at reduced performance as taught by Park.
The combination above does not disclose, but Ryu discloses wherein the image included in the second screen includes objects indicating information related to execution of modules related to the watchface (p. 14, section 0173-0174; the watchface screen/2nd screen includes a menu object that indicates information related to settings that control how the watchface module is executed). Motivation for the combination is similar to that given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 3, Lee does not disclose, but Park discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, based on the switching to the unlocked state and completion of initial execution of at least one module related to the watchface, change the number of frames per second of the watchface from the first value to a second value, and control the display to display the second screen at the number of frames per second of the second value and the first screen at the number of frames per second of the first value during a second time period after the completion of the initial execution of the at least one module related to the watchface (fig. 4; fig. 5; p. 11, section 0137; p. 21, sections 0251-0254; based on switching the folding state to a state where the two displays are unlocked from each other and instead folded to opposite sides, and completion of execution of an algorithm that successfully predicts the change, an application, which can be a watchface as noted above, can have frames per second changed to a second value while the other application stays at the first frames per second value). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 2.
As to claims 9 and 10, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 11, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claims 15 and 16, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 17, see the rejection to claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gajulapally and Ryu and Park and further in view of Nambi (U.S. Publication 2014/0198138).
As to claim 4, Lee does not disclose but Park discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: change the number of frames per second of the watchface (see rejection to claim 2 above).
The combination of references cited above does not disclose, but Nambi discloses changing to a third value after a specified time elapses after the change to the second value, and before completion of the initialization, and control the display to display the second screen at the number of frames per second of the third value from a time of the change to the third value, wherein the first value is a value less than the second value, and wherein the third value is a value greater than the second value (fig. 20; p. 1, section 0007; p. 10, sections 0101- 0103; before completion of an initialization of a wake from idle mode, the reference steps through a first fps value, a second value greater than a first, a third greater than a second, and a fourth greater than the third). The motivation for this is to avoid visual artifacts when transitioning display states. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee, Gajulapally, Ryu, and Park to change to a third value after a specified time elapses after the change to the second value, and before completion of the initialization, and control the display to display the second screen at the number of frames per second of the third value from a time of the change to the third value, wherein the first value is a value less than the second value, and wherein the third value is a value greater than the second value in order to avoid visual artifacts when transitioning display states as taught by Nambi.
As to claim 5, Lee does not disclose, but Park discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to change the number of frames per second of the watchface before the first screen is removed (see rejection to claim 2 above).
The combination of references cited above does not disclose, but Nambi discloses changing the number of frames per second of the application related to the system user interface from the first value to a fourth value after a specified time elapses from a time of changing the number of frames per second to the third value (fig. 20; p. 1, section 0007; p. 10, sections 0101-0103; before completion of an initialization of a wake from idle mode, the reference steps through a first fps value, a second value greater than a first, a third greater than a second, and a fourth greater than the third). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 12, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 18, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 19, see the rejection to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights