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 .
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 18, and 20 have been amended, and Claims 5 and 15 have been cancelled, as per the amendment filed on 9/22/2026.
Currently Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are pending and prosecuted.
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 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, US Patent Publication 2014/0292670, in further view of Imine, Patent Publication 2006/0274368.
Regarding Claim 1, Cho discloses an electronic apparatus (Abstract; a mobile device), comprising:
memory storing one or more instructions (Figure 1; [0048]; [0052]; [0054]; [0120]; a storage unit 160 that stores various digital data, program for processing and controlling the processor, temporarily storing input/output data, applications );
a communication interface (Figure 1; [0043]; a communication unit 170 ) ;
an e-paper display (Figure 1; [0043]; an e-paper display unit 110); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Figure 1; [0048]; [0052]; [0054]; [0120]; a processor 130 that implements contents stored in the storage unit 160, implement various applications and processing of data of the mobile device 100), cause the electronic apparatus to:
control the e-paper display to display a first image in a first mode (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; an Active mode (first mode) where Internet contents are displayed (first image));
control, based on the first mode being changed to a second mode based on a first user input, the e-paper display to update the first image in the first mode after a first time (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; detecting a second input within the predetermined time ‘t’ to be switched to a third standby mode 23 (based on the first mode being changed to a second mode based on a first user input), that represents the state that a blank image is displayed on the e-paper display (display to update the first image in the first mode). The examiner considers the time period during which the device the device is in the active state, to when the device detects a lack of input signal for the predetermine time and detects the second input to change to the third standby mode to be the “first time”); and
control, based on the first mode being changed to a third mode based on a second user input, the display to update the first image in the first mode after a second time (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; changing to second standby mode 22 that presents a state that the predetermined contents are displayed (display to update the first image in the first mode) based on a first input within in a predetermined time t (based on the first mode being changed to a third mode based on a first user input). The examiner considers the time period during which the device the device is in the active state, to when the device detects a lack of input signal for the predetermine time and detects the first input to change to the second standby mode to be the “second time”).
However, Cho doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the communication interface is deactivated in the second mode, and activated in the third mode.
Imine, Patent Publication 2006/0274368, teaches a data processing apparatus that operates in a power saving mode incapable of receiving wireless communication, and a standby mode that is capable of receiving wireless communication data (Abstract).
Iminie’s teachings of a different modes for a data processing apparatus, where based on the mode, the data processing apparatus is either capable or incapable of wireless communication, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the disclosure of Cho’s mobile device that enters into different standby modes, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in having the communication unit 170 deactivated in the third standby mode 23 (second mode), and the communication unit 170 activated in the second standby mode 22 (third mode) since Cho teaches that standby modes represent a power saving mode of the mobile device, and corresponds to a mode that reduces power consumption (Cho: [0061];).
Therefore, the claimed subject matter of “wherein the communication interface is deactivated in the second mode, and activated in the third mode”, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Cho and Iminie teaches wherein the first mode is a normal mode, the second mode is a power saving mode, and the third mode is a communication standby mode (Cho: Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; the active mode is a “normal mode”, the third standby mode 23 is considered to be a “power saving mode”, and the second standby mode 22 is considered to be a “standby mode”).
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Cho and Iminie wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises a low-power timer (Cho: Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; a processor detects a lack of a touch input signal for a predetermined time, which the examiner is considers as a “low-power timer”), and
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to determine whether the first time and the second time are reached using the low-power timer (Cho: Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; the “first time” and the “second time” is determined based on the “low-power timer”).
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Cho and Iminie doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises a power unit comprising at least one from among a power controller, a rechargeable battery, a power adaptor, a harvesting Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC), or a solar battery (Cho: [0051]; The power unit 150 is an external power source (a power adaptor), and may supply the power to the mobile device 100.),
wherein the rechargeable battery is connected with at least one from among the power adaptor, the harvesting PMIC, or the solar battery (The examiner notes that because the previous limitations recite that the power unit comprises of at least one and not all of the components, this limitation is considered as being conditional and requires the components recited to be include in the power unit), and
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to supply power of the rechargeable battery to the low-power timer through the power controller in the second mode and the third mode (The examiner notes that because the previous limitations recite that the power unit comprises of at least one and not all of the components, this limitation is considered as being conditional and requires the components recited to be include in the power unit).
Regarding Claim 11, Cho discloses a controlling method of an electronic apparatus including an e-paper display and a communication interface (Abstract; Figure 1; [0043]; a mobile device comprising of an e-paper display unit 110 and a communication unit 170 ) , the controlling method comprising:
displaying a first image in a first mode (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; an Active mode (first mode) where Internet contents are displayed (first image));
updating, based on the first mode being changed to a second mode based on a first user input, the first image in the first mode after a first time (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; detecting a second input within the predetermined time ‘t’ to be switched to a third standby mode 23 (based on the first mode being changed to a second mode based on a first user input), that represents the state that a blank image is displayed on the e-paper display (display to update the first image in the first mode). The examiner considers the time period during which the device the device is in the active state, to when the device detects a lack of input signal for the predetermine time and detects the second input to change to the third standby mode to be the “first time”); and
updating, based on the first mode being changed to a third mode based on a second user input, the first image in the first mode after a second time (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; changing to second standby mode 22 that presents a state that the predetermined contents are displayed (display to update the first image in the first mode) based on a first input within in a predetermined time t (based on the first mode being changed to a third mode based on a first user input). The examiner considers the time period during which the device the device is in the active state, to when the device detects a lack of input signal for the predetermine time and detects the first input to change to the second standby mode to be the “second time”).
However, Cho doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the communication interface is deactivated in the second mode, and activated in the third mode.
Imine, Patent Publication 2006/0274368, teaches a data processing apparatus that operates in a power saving mode incapable of receiving wireless communication, and a standby mode that is capable of receiving wireless communication data (Abstract).
Iminie’s teachings of a different modes for a data processing apparatus, where based on the mode, the data processing apparatus is either capable or incapable of wireless communication, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the disclosure of Cho’s mobile device that enters into different standby modes, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in having the communication unit 170 deactivated in the third standby mode 23 (second mode), and the communication unit 170 activated in the second standby mode 22 (third mode) since Cho teaches that standby modes represent a power saving mode of the mobile device, and corresponds to a mode that reduces power consumption (Cho: [0061];).
Therefore, the claimed subject matter of “wherein the communication interface is deactivated in the second mode, and activated in the third mode”, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Cho and Iminie teaches wherein the first mode is a normal mode, the second mode is a power saving mode, and the third mode is a communication standby mode (Cho: Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; the active mode is a “normal mode”, the third standby mode 23 is considered to be a “power saving mode”, and the second standby mode 22 is considered to be a “standby mode”).
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of wherein the electronic apparatus further includes a low-power timer (Cho: Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; a processor detects a lack of a touch input signal for a predetermined time, which the examiner is considers as a “low-power timer”), and wherein the controlling method further comprises determining whether the first time and the second time are reached based on an output of the low-power timer (Cho: Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; the “first time” and the “second time” is determined based on the “low-power timer”).
Regarding Claim 20, Cho discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having one or more instructions recorded thereon, that, when executed by an electronic apparatus including an e-paper display and a communication interface individually or collectively (Abstract; Figure 1; [0048]; [0052]; [0054]; [0120]; a mobile device comprising an e-paper display unit 110, a communication unit 170, and a storage unit 160 that stores various digital data, program for processing and controlling the processor, temporarily storing input/output data, applications. a processor 130 that implements contents stored in the storage unit 160, implement various applications and processing of data of the mobile device 100) , cause the electronic apparatus to:
control the e-paper display to display a first image in a first mode (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; an Active mode (first mode) where Internet contents are displayed (first image));
control, based on the first mode being changed to a second mode based on a first user input, the e-paper display to update the first image in the first mode after a first time (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; detecting a second input within the predetermined time ‘t’ to be switched to a third standby mode 23 (based on the first mode being changed to a second mode based on a first user input), that represents the state that a blank image is displayed on the e-paper display (display to update the first image in the first mode). The examiner considers the time period during which the device the device is in the active state, to when the device detects a lack of input signal for the predetermine time and detects the second input to change to the third standby mode to be the “first time”); and
control, based on the first mode being changed to a third mode based on a second user input, the e-paper display to update the first image in the first mode after a second time (Figure 3, 4, and 7; [0059-0070]; [0077-0081]; [0086]; changing to second standby mode 22 that presents a state that the predetermined contents are displayed (display to update the first image in the first mode) based on a first input within in a predetermined time t (based on the first mode being changed to a third mode based on a first user input). The examiner considers the time period during which the device the device is in the active state, to when the device detects a lack of input signal for the predetermine time and detects the first input to change to the second standby mode to be the “second time”).
However, Cho doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the communication interface is deactivated in the second mode, and activated in the third mode.
Imine, Patent Publication 2006/0274368, teaches a data processing apparatus that operates in a power saving mode incapable of receiving wireless communication, and a standby mode that is capable of receiving wireless communication data (Abstract).
Iminie’s teachings of a different modes for a data processing apparatus, where based on the mode, the data processing apparatus is either capable or incapable of wireless communication, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the disclosure of Cho’s mobile device that enters into different standby modes, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in having the communication unit 170 deactivated in the third standby mode 23 (second mode), and the communication unit 170 activated in the second standby mode 22 (third mode) since Cho teaches that standby modes represent a power saving mode of the mobile device, and corresponds to a mode that reduces power consumption (Cho: [0061];).
Therefore, the claimed subject matter, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, US Patent Publication 2014/0292670, in further view of Imine, Patent Publication 2006/0274368, in further view of Chung et al., US Patent Publication 2004/0246562, henceforth known as Chung.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Cho and Iminie doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the e-Paper display comprises electronic ink comprising charged particles, and wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to:
initialize an arrangement of the charged particles, and control the e-Paper display to update the first image by realigning the arrangement of the charged particles based on the first image.
However, Chung et al., US Patent Publication 2004/0246562, teaches an electrophoretic display (e-paper display) comprising of dielectric fluid and a suspension of charge pigment particles that visually contrast with the dielectric solvent ([0004];) (electronic ink comprising charged particles). Where the EPD is driven to have a desired image typically by first resetting all pixels to the black/background state (charged particles to the non-viewing side of the cells) (initialize an arrangement of the charged particles), and then drive the cells in the image area to the white state by driving the charged particles in cells to the viewing surface (control the e-Paper display to update the first image by realigning the arrangement of the charged particles based on the first image) (Figure 10A and 10B; [0074-0075];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Cho and Iminie to further include the teachings of Chung in order to provide wherein the e-Paper display comprises electronic ink comprising charged particles, and wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to: initialize an arrangement of the charged particles, and control the e-Paper display to update the first image by realigning the arrangement of the charged particles based on the first image. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Chung teaches a typical approach to displaying an image in an electrophoretic display (Chung: [0074];)
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, US Patent Publication 2014/0292670, in further view of Imine, Patent Publication 2006/0274368, in further view of Yoon et al., US Patent Publication 2019/0278324, henceforth known as Yoon.
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Cho and Iminie doesn’t explicitly teach the communication interface comprises at least one from among a Bluetooth interface or a Wi-Fi interface, and wherein the third mode activates at least one from among the Bluetooth interface or the Wi-Fi interface.
However, Yoon et al., US Patent Publication 2019/0278324, teaches an electronic device comprising of an communication module that may include a wifi module 223 and a Bluetooth module 223 (Abstract; [0046];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Cho and Iminie to further include the teachings of Yoon in order to provide the communication interface comprises at least one from among a Bluetooth interface or a Wi-Fi interface, and wherein the third mode activates at least one from among the Bluetooth interface or the Wi-Fi interface. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Yoon teaches what modules may be included in a communication module of an electronic device (Yoon: Abstract; [0046];).
Regarding Claim 17, The combination of Cho and Iminie doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the communication interface comprises at least one from among a Bluetooth interface or a Wi-Fi interface, and wherein the third mode activates at least one from among the Bluetooth interface or the Wi-Fi interface.
However, Yoon et al., US Patent Publication 2019/0278324, teaches an electronic device comprising of an communication module that may include a wifi module 223 and a Bluetooth module 223 (Abstract; [0046];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Cho and Iminie to further include the teachings of Yoon in order to provide the communication interface comprises at least one from among a Bluetooth interface or a Wi-Fi interface, and wherein the third mode activates at least one from among the Bluetooth interface or the Wi-Fi interface. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Yoon teaches what modules may be included in a communication module of an electronic device (Yoon: Abstract; [0046];).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants remarks that the combination of Cho and Imine does not teach the features present in independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the applicant arguing that Cho does not disclose a configuration in which, as in the present invention, despite a mode change, the mode returns to the previous mode an image displayed on the e-Paper display is updated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Iminie is nonanalogous art (i.e., Applicant argues that Iminie does not belong to the technical field of e-Paper), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Iminie is being utilized to teach how a device can operate in different modes in which one of the modes is incapable of receiving wireless communication, and another is capable of receiving wireless communication data (Iminie: Abstract).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants’ remarks Cho’s teachings of presenting a blank image on the e-paper display when transitioning to the third standby mode, and when presenting a state that the predetermined contents are displayed when transitioning to the second standby mode are not an update of the image of the first mode. The examiner maintains that Cho’s teachings are indeed updates of the image, as they are updating the image being displayed to correspond to the mode the device is in. As such, Cho’s teachings meets the claim limitation as stated in the rejection.
The applicant is invited to further describe what the updates to the first image includes, is limited to, or explicitly specify what the updated image is in order to differentiate itself from the teachings of Cho.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants remarks towards the reference Imine being utilized to teach the limitation of “wherein the communication interface is deactivated in the second mode, and activated in the third mode”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the combined teachings of Cho and Imine would eliminate one of the user input, and thus the combined teachings would not results in all the features described in Claim 1, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As stated in the rejection, Imine teaches a data processing apparatus that operates in a power saving mode incapable of receiving wireless communication, and a standby mode that is capable of receiving wireless communication data (Abstract).
One skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized Imine’s teachings as applicable to the teachings of Cho which describes different standby modes of a mobile device, which represent a power saving mode, that also has a communication device for the reasons as stated above in the rejection.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 1.
The examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 11 and 20 for the same reasons as Claim 1.
The rejection of Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 19 are also maintained for the same reasons as stated above and in the rejection.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 PATRICK F MARINELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)-272-7495. 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.
/PATRICK F MARINELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
