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 3, 9, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the limitations “head reflective surface” and “change…from a head side to a head front” Examiner believes that the claim language has no clear boundary: reflective to what sensor mode (camera, IR, etc) and what constitutes the “surface” (cross-sectional region, pixel area, etc) and is also unclear as a measurable condition without clearly specifying threshold/limit. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dharawat et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0061600).
Regarding claim 1, Dharawat teaches a human-computer interaction method, wherein the method is applied to an electronic device, and the method comprises:
obtaining a first change, wherein the first change comprises at least one of a body action change of a user, a location change of at least a part of a body of the user relative to the electronic device, a location change of the electronic device, or a location change of the electronic device relative to the user (Dharawat: Under the BRI, examiner reasonably and broadly interprets the limitations “first change” to cover any detected change in user proximity and/or presence, device motion, or relative position, etc. At least para 0020-0051 teaches that devices receive notification including content such as text, a picture, video content, etc and that activating the display upon each notification can consume power, so devices control indication of notifications to scenarios where a user is available to view and/or interest, relying upon sensor data to detect user proximity. Furthermore, Dharawat teaches detecting user presence in response to motion of the smartphone, which corresponds to the claim language of “first change”.); and processing a target event, wherein the target event is viewing a real-time message on the electronic device (Dharawat: Examiner reasonably and broadly interprets the limitations “processing a target event…viewing a real-time message” as performing device operations that enable and/or advance user viewing of a msg/notification, e.g., waking up display, showing notification content/preview. Dharawat’s notifications explicitly teach message types such as email, SMS, MMS, picture msg, video msg, etc., which corresponds to the claim language “real-time message”.).
Regarding claims 12, and 17, these claims are also rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gan et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0304785).
Regarding claim 1, Gan teaches a human-computer interaction method, wherein the method is applied to an electronic device, and the method comprises:
obtaining a first change, wherein the first change comprises at least one of a body action change of a user, a location change of at least a part of a body of the user relative to the electronic device, a location change of the electronic device, or a location change of the electronic device relative to the user (Gan: abstract and para 0015-0025); and processing a target event, wherein the target event is viewing a real-time message on the electronic device (Gan: abstract and para 0015-0025, always-on display is actuated.).
Regarding claims 12, and 17, these claims are also rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dharawat in view of Kohlhoff et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0309569).
Regarding claim 2, Dharawat does not explicitly teach the concept of wherein the body action change of the user comprises turning of a head of the user. Kohlhoff teaches wherein the body action change of the user comprises turning of a head of the user (Kohlhoff: para 0025-0045, head tilting and head movement is determined.).
They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dharawat in view of the teachings of Kohlhoff so as to detect head turning concept of Kohlhoff as part of determining when and how to present and allow a user to view a message and/or notifications.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the turning of the head of the user is determined based on a change of a head reflective surface of the user from a head side to a head front (Kohlhoff: para 0025-0045 and Dharawat: para 0020-0055, although this claim is indefinite under 112b, the claim is interpreted broadly to include any detectable face, facial, or head surface attributes indicative of head orientation. Changes in visible facial surface region and/or characteristics must correspond to changes in reflected sensor signals from the head surface.).
Regarding claims 13, and 18, these claims are also rejected for the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claims 14, and 21, these claims are also rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dharawat in view of DeVries et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0082255).
Regarding claim 4, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the target event is one of a plurality of interactive events. DeVries teaches wherein the target event is one of a plurality of interactive events (DeVries: para 0050-0065 and abstract, target hit areas, breathing view 402, and peek request). They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dharawat’s proximity detection system in view of the teachings of DeVries so as to provide the well-known notification user interface system including a plurality of notifications, peek/lockscreen, event-driven display.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the method further
comprises: determining the plurality of interactive events based on a current process of the electronic device (DeVries: para 0050-0065 and abstract, target hit areas, breathing view 402, and peek request).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein processing the target event comprises: entering, by the electronic device, a lock screen interface from an always-on display interface (DeVries: para 0035-0045, always on display mode).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein obtaining the first change comprises: obtaining the first change based on a to-be-processed event occurring in the electronic device (DeVries: para 0035-0045 and abstract, triggering sensing based on events corresponds to routine events).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is similarly rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the processor executing the instructions further causes the electronic device to: determine the plurality of interactive events based on a current process of the electronic device (DeVries: para 0035-0045 and abstract, according to current process corresponds to routine events).
Regarding claim 22, this claim is similarly rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dharawat in view of Sivan (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0182415).
Regarding claim 11, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the first change comprises: obtaining the first change through at least one of a millimeter-wave radar sensor, a lidar sensor, or an ultrasonic radar sensor. Silvan teaches wherein obtaining the first change comprises: obtaining the first change through at least one of a millimeter-wave radar sensor, a lidar sensor, or an ultrasonic radar sensor (Silvan: para 0132 and 0308 and abstract, millimeter-wave detection is taught and motion sensor/direction is illustrated.). They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dharawat’s proximity detection system in view of the teachings of Sivan so as to achieve the same predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, and 9 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 and if rewritten to overcome the rejection 112b.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEJOON AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-9528. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/SEJOON AHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628