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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravine (US 2021/0099505 A1, hereinafter “Ravine”).
As to claim 9, Ravine (Fig. 8) discloses an electronic device (800) comprising:
one or more displays (Para. 0141-0142);
one or more input devices (806), and
one or more processors (802) configured to:
while displaying, via the one or more displays, a representation of a content item in a first visual state (Fig. 2A; portrait position initial viewing), detect, via the one or more input devices, movement of the electronic device (Fig. 2A);
in response to detecting the movement of the electronic device:
in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, the one or more criteria including a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects movement of the electronic device that greater than a movement threshold (Para. 0088), transition the representation of the content item from the first visual state to a second visual state (Fig. 2A, middle viewing), different from the first visual state;
while the representation of the content item is in the second visual state, detect, via the one or more input devices, ceasing of the movement of the electronic device (Fig. 13 step 1350; Para. 0081); and
in response to detecting the ceasing of the movement of the electronic device:
transition the representation of the content item from the second visual state to a third visual state, different from the second visual state (Fig. 2A, horizontal viewing; Para. 0081).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 1 and the similar media of claim 17.
As to claim 10, Ravine discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein transitioning the representation of the content item from the first visual state to the second visual state includes updating the representation of the content item from being displayed in a first size to being display in a second size, different from the first size (Fig. 2A; Para. 0081-0082).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 2 and the similar media of claim 18.
As to claim 11, Ravine discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein transitioning the representation of the content item from the first visual state to the second visual state includes: scaling the representation of the content item from a first size of to a second size or cropping the representation of the content item (Fig. 2A; Para. 0083, 0098).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 3 and the similar media of claim 19.
As to claim 12, Ravine discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the movement threshold is an angular movement threshold that is satisfied when the electronic device detects movement of the electronic device that exceeds a predetermined angular rotation (Para. 0088), an angular movement speed threshold that is satisfied when the electronic device detects a speed or velocity of movement of the electronic device that exceeds a predetermined angular speed or predetermined angular velocity, or an angular movement acceleration threshold that is satisfied when the electronic device detects an acceleration of movement of the electronic device that exceeds a predetermined angular acceleration.
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 4 and the similar media of claim 20.
As to claim 13, Ravine discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the one or more criteria further include one or more of:
a criterion that is satisfied when the representation of the content item includes a predefined visual cue (Fig. 4A element “identified area of emphasis”; Para. 0102);
an anti-clip/crop criterion that is satisfied when the predefined visual cue is located in a predefined region of the content item (Para. 0102); or
a criterion that is satisfied when the representation of the content item is greater than a size threshold.
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 5 and the similar media of claim 21.
As to claim 14, Ravine discloses the electronic device of claim 9, the one or more processors further configured to:
in accordance with a determination that one or more critical angular movement thresholds of the electronic device have been satisfied, cease the transitioning of the representation of the content item from the first visual state to the second visual state (Para. 0081, a landscape orientation or a portrait orientation).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 6 and the similar media of claim 22.
As to claim 16, Ravine discloses the electronic device of claim 9, the one or more processors further configured to: in response to detecting the movement of the electronic device: in accordance with a determination that the one or more criteria are not satisfied, forgo transitioning the representation of the content item from the first visual state to the second visual state (Para. 0088).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 8 and the similar media of claim 24.
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) 7, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravine as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Cain (US 2021/0049984 A1, hereinafter “Cain”).
As to claim 15, Ravine does not disclose the electronic device of claim 9, wherein detecting, via the one or more input devices, ceasing of the movement of the electronic device includes detecting less than a second threshold movement of the electronic device for a predetermined time period.
However, Cain teaches wherein detecting, via the one or more input devices, ceasing of the movement of the electronic device includes detecting less than a second threshold movement of the electronic device for a predetermined time period (Para. 0028, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Cain to detect rotation angle and time period in the device disclosed by Ravine. The motivation would have been to determine the resting angle of the electronic device (Cain; Para. 0018).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 7 and the similar media of claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Rappaport et al. (US 2022/0414819 A1) discloses a computing device with an orientation sensor (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2625