DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0232063) in view of Nagaraju (US 2015/0301608), hereinafter referred to as “Naga”.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a wearable electronic device (fig. 1) comprising:
a display interface (151, fig. 1) comprising a display and a touch circuit (para. 53,056);
a sensor interface (140, fig. 2) comprising a first sensor (142, fig. 2 and para. 76) and a second sensor (141, fig. 2 and para. 76);
a memory (170, fig. 2) configured to store instructions (para. 88); and
at least one processor (180, fig. 2) operatively connected to the display interface, the sensor interface, and the memory (see fig. 2),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to:
identify whether the wearable electronic device is worn on a wrist of a user (S311, fig. 5 and para. 109), by using the first sensor (para. 76; wherein e.g. tilt of the device is determined by a gyroscope sensor);
based on identifying the wearable electronic device is worn on the wrist of the user (S311, fig. 5), monitor a state of the wearable electronic device by using the second sensor (S313, fig. 5 and para. 110-111);
identify whether the wearable electronic device (based on decision in S313 in fig. 5) is in a first state (S315 in fig. 5) in which the display is positioned to ace a direction away from the body of the user of the wearable electronic device (para. 110-111 and S315 in fig. 5) or in a second state (S323 in fig. 5) in which the display is positioned to face toward the body of the user of the wearable electronic device (para. 110-111 and S323 in fig. 5); and
based on the wearable electronic device being in the first state (S315 in fig. 5), control the display interface (para. 121, 95-96).
Park fails to disclose wherein in the first state the size of the touch region is reduced.
Naga discloses based on the wearable electronic device (see watch in fig. 14) being in the first state (1401 in fig. 14A and para. 100), control the display interface to reduce a size of the touch region of the display interface (para. 100 and fig. 9A-9B; wherein the size of the touch region of the UI is based on the region of visibility facing the user, such that reduced region of visibility results in a reduced touch region size of the UI; and based on the wearable electronic device being in a second state (1402 in fig. 14B and para. 100), control the display interface to expand the size of the touch region of the display interface (para. 100 and fig. 9A-B; wherein the touch region of the UI increases when the region of visibility increases).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Naga in the device of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to dynamically adjust the size of the UI of the display based on current user visibility of the display (Naga; para. 100). Ultimately creating a more efficient user experience.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to, using the sensor interface, identify, as the first state (S315 in fig. 5):
a case in which the user of the wearable electronic device crosses arms and thus the display faces a direction away from the a body of the user (see fig. 8(a)), a case in which the display faces a direction away from the body of the user in a state in which the user lowers the wrist wearing the wearable electronic device (para. 96), or a case in which the user places the wrist wearing the wearable electronic device in a predetermined location (para. 96).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to, using the second sensor (para. 76), identify, as the first state (S315 in fig. 5), a case in which the user of the wearable electronic device does not view or is unable to view the display through eyes (para. 95-96 and fig. 8), and identify, as the second state, a case in which the user of the wearable electronic device views or is able to view the display through the eyes (para. 95 and fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses wherein the sensor interface further comprises a fourth sensor (para. 76-77; including e.g. a pressure sensor), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to, using the fourth sensor, determine whether to enter an initial screen displayed on the display interface (S321 in fig. 5), based on an intensity or a magnitude of a pressure applied to the display interface (S319 in fig. 5).
Claims 11-17 are rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1-7, respectively. See above rejections.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1. See above rejection.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naga in further view of Guzman (US 10,852,905).
Regarding claim 8, Park fails to disclose wherein based on the first state, shortening a time for entering a screen of the device.
Guzman discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to, based on the wearable electronic device being in the first state (see first mode in col. 60-61, lines 62-9), shorten a time for entering an initial screen of the wearable electronic device displayed through the display interface (see col. 60-61, lines 62-9; wherein the device stays in first mode for a shorter amount of time when first mode is triggered by gesture).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Guzman in the device of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to be in first mode (or powered mode) for a shorter amount of time when first mode was triggered by an unintentional gesture (Guzman; col. 60-61, lines 62-9, wherein a power saving strategy is applied to unintentional gestures/touches).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 8. See above rejection.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naga in further view of Yamano (US 2016/0342280).
Regarding claim 9, Park fails to disclose determining a touch based on a shape or area of the touch.
Yamano discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to determine whether to enter an initial screen displayed on the display interface (fig. 13 and para. 110; wherein a touch is determined based on the contact area of the finger and corresponding threshold comparison), based on a shape or an area of a touch point on the display interface (fig. 13 and para. 110; wherein a touch is determined based on the contact area of the finger and corresponding threshold comparison).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Yamano in the device of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to distinguish between touch and non-touch events, based on the contact area of the finger (Yamano; fig. 13 and para. 100).
Regarding claim 10, Park fails to disclose determining a touch based on a shape of the touch area.
Yamano discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to change an initial screen displayed on the display interface or restrict a change of the initial screen (fig. 13 and para. 110; wherein a touch is determined based on the contact area of the finger and corresponding threshold comparison), based on a shape or an area of a touch point on the display interface (fig. 13 and para. 110; wherein a touch is determined based on the contact area of the finger and corresponding threshold comparison).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Yamano in the device of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to distinguish between touch and non-touch events, based on the contact area of the finger (Yamano; fig. 13 and para. 100).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 9. See above rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See new citations above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights