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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 04 June 2026, in which:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-13, 15, 16, 17 and 20 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections to claim 1-20 under 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Ely does not teach edge suppression, and Patel’s edge suppression is strict, static, and geometric, meaning it does not dynamically change based on orientation. Thus, the Applicant asserts a PHOSITA would lack motivation to combine the two.
The Office respectfully traverses this argument. The fact that Patel’s edge suppression is static is exactly why a PHOSITA would be motivated to modify it with Ely. Ely expressly teaches a dynamic control mechanism evaluating the device orientation as viewing versus non-viewing and dynamically deciding whether to accept or reject touch inputs based on that orientation to prevent accidental touches (Ely, Col. 7, lines 45-67 and Col. 8, lines 31-48). Applying Patel’s specific spatial filter (ignoring the peripheral area) as the method of touch rejection when the device is in Ely’s “non-viewing” orientation is an application of a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. A PHOSITA would recognize that Patel’s static edge suppression frustrates the user when they are actively looking at the watch (Ely’s “reference orientation range”), making it entirely obvious to use Ely’s orientation detection logic to dynamically turn Patel’s static edge filter on and off. Accordingly, the 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 of this title, 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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely et al. (US 10,969,866, hereinafter “Ely”) in view of Patel et al. (US 2015/0370411, hereinafter “Patel”).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Ely teaches a wearable device comprising:
at least one sensor (Ely: Fig. 5, Col. 5, lines 47-67, watch 10 includes accelerometer 22, gyroscope 24 and compass 26);
touch circuitry including control circuitry and a touch sensor;
a display panel including an area capable of receiving a touch input via the touch sensor (Ely: Fig. 5, Col. 5, lines 38-42, watch 10 includes display 19 provided with an input surface for a touch sensing device); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (Ely: Col. 5, lines 10-25, Fig. 5, watch 10 includes a processor 50),
wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
obtain information indicating a posture of the wearable device via the at least one sensor (Ely: Col. 5, lines 47-67, Col. 7, lines 45-67, “orient the watch so that the display is directed toward the face… viewing orientations”);
performing an action or rejecting input based on information indicating that the posture is different from a reference posture (Ely: Col. 10, lines 16-21, tactile inputs can be rejected when the watch is not in a viewing orientation).
Ely fails to expressly disclose:
Identify a touch input on the touch-sensitive area without regard to contact points on a peripheral area when out of the reference orientation range, and identify a touch input with regard to contact points on the peripheral area when within the reference orientation range.
However, Patel discloses:
Identifying a touch input on a touch-sensitive area without regard to contact points on a peripheral area of the touch-sensitive area (Patel: Fig. 5, Para. [0018], [0021], region 124 around the perimeter of the touchscreen display 102 as a predefined threshold 120 of the active area 104; If L > r’, then the processor 202 suppresses the touch).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Ely, to incorporate the identifying a touch input without regard to contact points on a peripheral area, as taught by Patel, in order to selectively apply the edge suppression dynamically when the device is out of the viewing orientation to prevent incidental edge contact, while identifying touches on the entire area when actively viewed (Patel: Para. [0003], [0021]; Ely: Col. 4, line 49 – Col. 5, line 9).
With respect to Claim 12 (Currently Amended), this method is the method of using the apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 12 is rendered obvious by the combination of Ely in view of Patel as used for claim 1.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely and Patel in further view of Ko et al. (US 2017/0202036, hereinafter "Ko").
With respect to Claim 5 (Currently Amended), the combination of Ely as modified by Patel teaches the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising communication circuitry and memory storing instructions (Ely: Col. 6, lines 19-27, "memory 52 can store electronic data... communication element 60"), the device can receive information indicating a state of a connected electronic device (Ely: Col. 4, lines 4-31, Col. 6, lines 19-27, watch 10 “communicating with an external device,” and "external device 90 can be a smartphone").
The combination fails to expressly teach: refraining from identifying touch on the wearable in response to the connected electronic device state corresponding to a "reference state" indicating use.
However, Ko teaches: receiving state information from an external opponent device and coordinating functions/roles based on that state (Ko: Para [0018], "receiving, from the second electronic device, state information... determining the role of the first electronic device based on the state information"). Samsung '129 further teaches that this coordination is used to reduce redundancy between devices (Ko: Abstract). As applied to the combination, Patel provides the specific "refraining" action or suppressing touch input data as used for the periphery in Claim 1.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Ely and Patel, to incorporate the role-switching logic of Ko in order to refrain from identifying touch input on the wearable when the user is focused on the connected device (Ko: Abstract).
With respect to Claim 6 (Currently Amended), the combination of Ely as modified by Patel and Ko teaches the wearable device of claim 5.
Ely teaches that the determination to perform an action is based on operational parameters and display states (Ely: Col. 8, lines 21-48).
It would be obvious to revert to normal touch identification when the inhibitory "reference state" is no longer communicated from the phone, as this is the predictable result of the logic gating already taught by Ely (Ely: Col. 9, lines 18-27, if the processor determines that the tactile input should be accepted, the processor can perform the action).
With respect to Claim 7 (Currently Amended), the combination of Ely as modified by Patel and Ko teaches the wearable device of claim 6, wherein the state of the electronic device corresponding to the reference state comprises:
a display panel of the electronic device in an unlock state pointing toward a face, and a touch input on the display panel of the electronic device being identified (Ely: Col. 7, lines 45-67, the viewing orientation where the display is directed toward the face and a touch input being identified are the primary triggers for intentional interaction).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend Ely’s “pointing toward a face” orientation check to the connected smartphone as the “reference state” trigger, since a phone pointed at the face and unlocked indicates active user attention.
With respect to Claims 16-18, these method claims are the method claims of using the apparatus as claimed in claims 5-7, respectively. Therefore, Claims 16-18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Ely, Patel and Ko.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely in view of Patel and Ko, and further in view of Onishi.
With respect to Claim 8 (Currently Amended), the combination of Ely as modified by Patel and Ko teaches different states for connected devices.
The combination fails to expressly teach: the state different from the reference state comprising the electronic device being in a state for lower power consumption.
However, Ely teaches: identifying an inactive display state as an operational parameter (Ely: Col. 7, lines 33-44, "when a display of a watch is inactive (i.e., 'off'), it can be inferred that the user likely did not intentionally interact").
Furthermore, Onishi teaches: that unnecessary touching can be prevented and "consumption power can be decreased" by deactivating touch functionality (Onishi: Para. [0058], [0099], "turn off the backlight and can decrease consumption power").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the non-reference state as a lower power state or sleep state as taught by Ely and Onishi, because if the phone is saving power/inactive, the user is likely to shift focus back to the wearable.
With respect to Claim 19, this method is the method of using the apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 19 is rendered obvious by the combination of Ely in view of Patel, Ko and Onishi as used for claim 8.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 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 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights