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 § 112
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 12:
The term "reference posture" is a relative term that lacks an objective standard. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the objective boundary where a posture transitions from being "the reference posture" to being "different from a reference posture." Because the specification fails to provide a baseline (e.g., a specific tilt angle relative to a gravity vector or user's face), the limitation is purely subjective. This rejection applies to Claim 12 as well, as the method step of "identifying... different from a reference posture" relies on the same indefinite standard. Additionally, Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected herewith by virtue of claim dependency.
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 12:
The limitation "refrain from providing... data for identifying... as a touch input" is a functional limitation that defines the apparatus/method by a desired result rather than structure or specific steps. It is unclear if the circuitry physically disconnects the sensor, filters the signal at a firmware level, or if data is transmitted but ignored. This black box recitation fails to inform the public of the structural bounds of the circuitry (Claim 1) or the physical acts of the method (Claim 12). Additionally, Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected herewith by virtue of claim dependency.
Regarding Claims 5 and 16:
The term "reference state" is indefinite. While the claim defines it as "indicating use of the electronic device," "use" is a broad functional outcome. It is unclear if "use" refers to a screen-on state, an unlocked state, an active data connection, or specific user interaction.
Regarding Claim 10:
The term "the information" lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 5 introduces "information indicating a state of an electronic device," while claim 1 introduces "information indicating a posture." It is unclear which specific "information" is being received from the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 11:
The limitation "refraining from providing data... on the second partial area" appears to contradict the logic of Claim 1. Claim 1 establishes the "second partial area" as the active region where data is provided. Claim 11 describes refraining from providing data for this same area based on an external device state, creating an internal inconsistency.
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, 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: identifying a first partial area along a periphery and a second partial area surrounded by the first, and refraining from providing touch data based on those specific spatial zones.
However, Patel discloses:
identify, from the area, a first partial area located along a periphery of the area and a second partial area surrounded by the first partial area (Patel: Fig. 5, Para. [0018], a first partial area (region 124) around the perimeter of the touchscreen display 102 as a predefined threshold 120 of the active area 104; the first partial area surrounding a second partial area (inner active area 104));
in response to identifying points of contact on the first partial area via the touch sensor, refrain from providing, to the at least one processor, data for identifying at least a portion of the points of contact on the first partial area as a touch input; and
in response to identifying points of contact on the second partial area via the touch sensor, provide, to the at least one processor, data for identifying at least a portion of the points of contact on the second partial area as a touch input (Patel: Para. [0021], if L > r’, then the processor 202 suppresses the touch; if L < r’, the processor 202 processes touch as normal).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Ely, to incorporate the spatial partitioning, as taught by Patel, in order to distinguish between intentional touches and incidental contact during non-viewing postures (Patel: Para. [0003], [0021]).
With respect to Claim 12, 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 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely in view of Patel, as applied above, and further in view of Onishi et al. (US 2014/0071090, hereinafter “Onishi”).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Ely as modified by Patel teaches the base wearable device and spatial touch suppression logic as applied to peripheral and inner zones.
Ely and Patel fail to expressly teach: identifying areas based on first and second (lower) touch sensitivities; specific relative widths of those areas’ and identifying a high-sensitivity third area within the center.
However, Onishi teaches: identifying multiple areas based on a first touch sensitivity and a second lower touch sensitivity (Onishi: Fig. 13A-B, Para. [0123], detection sensitivity of the side of an end is decreased, such that the detection sensitivity becomes lower than the detection sensitivity of the other portion. Onishi further teaches that detection sensitivity can be set variably for each area, including maintaining high sensitivity in specific portions based on proximity results (Onishi: Para. [0099]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Ely and Patel, to incorporate varying sensitivity, as taught by Onishi, in order to prevent erroneous detections from being generated when a manipulation object comes close to the outside of a manipulatable region (Onishi: Para. [0126])
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Ely as modified by Patel and Onishi teaches the wearable device of claim 2, wherein a width of the first partial area is narrower than a width of the third partial area (Patel: Para. [0018], width of the peripheral regions is based on predefined threshold 120). Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Patel, to adjust the widths of the first and third partial areas relative to one another as a matter of routine optimization to balance interface utility with accidental touch rejection based on the user’s posture (Patel: Para. [0019]).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Ely as modified by Patel and Onishi teaches the wearable device of claim 1.
Ely as modified by Patel fails to expressly teach: identifying a third area surrounded by the second area with a touch sensitivity higher than the second area while the posture is different from a reference posture.
However, Onishi teaches: that detection sensitivity can be set variably for each area, including maintaining high sensitivity in specific portions based on proximity results to raise detection precision (Onishi: Para. [0045], [0088]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further identify a third sweet spot area within the center active area as taught by Onishi and assign it a higher sensitivity than the second area in order to ensure that even in non-viewing postures, intentional central interactions are prioritized and accurately captured (Onishi: Para. [0045], [0088])
With respect to Claims 13-15, these method claims are the method claims of using the apparatus as claimed in claims 2-4 respectively. Therefore, Claims 13-15 are rendered obvious by the combination of Ely, Patel and Onishi.
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, 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, 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, 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, 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 12 is rendered obvious by the combination of Ely in view of Patel, Ko and Onishi as used for claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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