or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google version of 'slide-to-unlock' patent published by USPTO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google version of 'slide-to-unlock' patent published by USPTO

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
Following a key Apple court win against Motorola in Germany over a 'slide-to-unlock' patent, Google last week saw its own unlocking patent filing from 2010 published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Google's original patent, titled "Input to Locked Computing Device," describes methods to unlock a device through a combination of touch or voice inputs, and could possibly be the answer to Apple's litigation regarding 'slide-to-unlock,' according to Patently Apple.

This iteration of lock screen input, first filed for in August 2010, varies from offerings like Apple's 'slide-to-unlock' in that it doesn't necessarily bring the user directly to the home screen, but instead executes at least one command such as making a phone call or opening an app.

From the patent abstract:
Quote:
The subject matter of this specification can be embodied in, among other things, a method that includes receiving at a computing device that is in a locked state, one or more user inputs to unlock the device and to execute at least one command that is different from a command for unlocking the device. The method further includes executing in response to the user inputs to unlock the device an unlocking operation by the device to convert the device from a locked state to an unlocked state. The method further includes executing the at least one command in response to receiving the user inputs to execute the at least one command. The at least one command executes so that results of executing the at least one command are first displayed on the device to a user automatically after the device changes from the locked state to the unlocked state.

The implementation of the patent could involve complex interaction with icons on a lock screen that would be difficult to perform accidentally.

Google gives the example below of a circular interface with three icons that can only be unlocked with multiple dragging actions, in this case the unlocking of a mail app. Alternately, touch input can be used with voice input to unlock the device as seen in the operations flowchart.


Google unlock method could sidestep Apple's prior art. | Source: Patently Apple


It remains in question whether the added layer of command execution varies enough from Apple's prior art of 'slide-to-unlock' to afford Google the rights to the new patent, however the USPTO's publication can be seen as a step in that direction.

Apple recently won a German injunction against Motorola over the company's slide-to-unlock patent, which has forced the RAZR maker to rethink its implementation of the lock screen inputs.

With Google on the verge of completing a buyout of Motorola Mobility, the internet giant will soon have a higher stake in the seemingly endless patent war currently being waged around the world.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 38
Why is it that patents Apple filed back in 2007 are just now being awarded, yet Google files in 2010 and it is granted in under 2 years?
post #3 of 38
I want to see what happens with this bad boy: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Notification center what?
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
post #4 of 38
What a beautiful and clever execution of a white question mark on a blue square field, which doesn't resemble Apple's "slide to unlock" method at all. That should easily side-step infringing upon Apple's patent

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #5 of 38
In a way, this smacks of hubris more than anything I've seen on either side.

When the slide-to-unlock feature was demonstrated, it was an novel solution to an novel problem. So some engineers looked at the solution, made a very slight variation, and then applied for (and got!) a patent. But what could possibly be more derivative than this? You might argue that the initial slide to unlock idea wasn't worth a patent. I'd disagree, but I could see someone making that argument. But this? Please. They didn't independently come up with a novel idea. They just did a very slight variation. Tiny variations are not supposed to be patentable.
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrfu31 View Post

Why is it that patents Apple filed back in 2007 are just now being awarded, yet Google files in 2010 and it is granted in under 2 years?

That's all part of the magic of the patent review process. Google likely cited Apple's patent, which would help the patent examiner's process... I guess.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrfu31 View Post

Why is it that patents Apple filed back in 2007 are just now being awarded, yet Google files in 2010 and it is granted in under 2 years?

It hasn't been granted yet, it's just been published.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I want to see what happens with this bad boy: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Notification center what?

This one is way more interesting. Filed in January of 09.
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I want to see what happens with this bad boy: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Notification center what?

Annnd look right there in the left hand side of the page you linked to and you will see "Filling date: Jan 30, 2009", a full 2.5 years BEFORE Apple's "Notification Center" was even previewed.

If you're going to insult the competition, at least make sure you're not dead wrong.
post #10 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I want to see what happens with this bad boy: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Notification center what?

"Open OS what?"

That's trouble right here in River City. Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for patents that Apple better hope either get invalidated or have already circumvented.

Guh, come early 2013 we're going to see the end of all this, aren't we? They're just going to keep gathering patents on both sides until

I'll wake up one morning to do my usual spam sweep and see "BREAKING: APPLE VS. GOOGLE IS GO" and the forums won't rest for TWO YEARS while this crap is debated.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #11 of 38
To me this patent doesn't look to infringe on anyone else's efforts with touchscreen sliders and also looks to be natural to use.


Quote:
Originally Posted by squiddy20 View Post

Annnd look right there in the left hand side of the page you linked to and you will see "Filling date: Jan 30, 2009", a full 2.5 years BEFORE Apple's "Notification Center" was even previewed.

If you're going to insult the competition, at least make sure you're not dead wrong.

Unless you count Apple's use of notifications that go back much early than before Google ever existed.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


That's trouble right here in River City. Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for patents that Apple better hope either get invalidated or have already circumvented.

Nice. Shapooppy.
oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneof52 View Post

Nice. Shapooppy.

♩♫ "The injunction that's hard to ge~t…" ♩♫

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Unless you count Apple's use of notifications that go back much early than before Google ever existed.

It doesn't matter that Apple might have had a method for some notifications does it? Google's patent app is for the way they're presented.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrfu31 View Post

Why is it that patents Apple filed back in 2007 are just now being awarded, yet Google files in 2010 and it is granted in under 2 years?

Because this isn't a patent. It's a published patent application. The USPTO routinely published applications 18 months after they are filed, but it can take years to issue.
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It doesn't matter that Apple might have had a method for some notifications does it? Google's patent app is for the way they're presented.

Yes, which is to protect it from anyone trying to use it in the future and assuming that Google's patent doesn't infringe on any previous patent. The patent office is not a court of law.

But note the focus on squiddy20's comment was only concerned about before and after, nothing else, except perhaps sticking it to Apple.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Yes, which is to protect it from anyone trying to use it in the future and assuming that Google's patent doesn't infringe on any previous patent. The patent office is not a court of law.

But note the focus on squiddy20's comment was only concerned about before and after, nothing else, except perhaps sticking it to Apple.

Ah gotcha. Understood.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 38
A patent that extends someone else's patent is perfectly normal, and may be targeted at trying to set up a patent rights swap with the original's owner, if the variant is useful enough.

Whether it rises to the level of novelty that the USPTO examiner wants to see is up to the examiner. I've been through enough patent filings that that's basically a toss-up. Some examiners are a lot easier than others, and the level of expertise in the subject area can vary a lot as well. Patents aren't clearly strong until they get tested in court, though sometimes you can tell by reading them how likely they are to hold up, if you know the prior art in the area.

At first glance, it's at least plausible that this would be accepted, as long as Google includes the Apple slide-to-unlock as prior art, and as long as the claims are distinct enough. Usually the claims are whittled down a lot between the filing and the issued patent (assuming it ever issues). I don't know the prior art well enough, and haven't read either this filing or Apple's patent in detail, so my opinion is only semi-informed here...
post #19 of 38
There's lots of patents floating around that could potentially be problematic for Apple or others if "someone" felt it necessary to file for infringement. Apple doesn't have a corner on patents for basic features that might be found on a smartphone, tablet or use by a browser.

Perhaps a patent like this one:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7346660&RS=PN/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMilliken View Post

A patent that extends someone else's patent is perfectly normal, and may be targeted at trying to set up a patent rights swap with the original's owner, if the variant is useful enough.

Whether it rises to the level of novelty that the USPTO examiner wants to see is up to the examiner. I've been through enough patent filings that that's basically a toss-up. Some examiners are a lot easier than others, and the level of expertise in the subject area can vary a lot as well. Patents aren't clearly strong until they get tested in court, though sometimes you can tell by reading them how likely they are to hold up, if you know the prior art in the area.

At first glance, it's at least plausible that this would be accepted, as long as Google includes the Apple slide-to-unlock as prior art, and as long as the claims are distinct enough. Usually the claims are whittled down a lot between the filing and the issued patent (assuming it ever issues). I don't know the prior art well enough, and haven't read either this filing or Apple's patent in detail, so my opinion is only semi-informed here...

I believe Apple could also file a "continuing patent application":

Quote:
Continuation

A "continuation application" is a patent application filed by an applicant who wants to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier application of the applicant (the "parent" application) that has not yet been issued or abandoned. The continuation uses the same specification as the pending parent application, claims the priority based on the filing date of the parent, and must name at least one of the inventors named in the parent application. This type of application is useful when a patent examiner allowed some, but rejected other claims in an application, or where an applicant may not have exhausted all useful ways of claiming different embodiments of the invention.[citation needed]

During the prosecution of a continuation application, the applicant may not add additional disclosure to the specification. If the inventor needs to supplement the disclosure of the earlier parent application, he must file a continuation-in-part application.[2]
In the typical case, a patent examiner will examine patent claims and amendments in an original patent application for two rounds of "office actions" before ending examination. However, often two office actions are not enough to resolve all of the issues in the patent prosecution. Therefore, it is common to think of a continuation application as though the applicant is merely purchasing more examination time from the patent examiner.[citation needed]

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's lots of patents floating around that could potentially be problematic for Apple or others if "someone" felt it necessary to file for infringement. Apple doesn't have a corner on patents for basic features that might be found on a smartphone, tablet or use by a browser.

Perhaps a patent like this one:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7346660&RS=PN/

Basic features, no... but specific methods and systems, yes. But that doesn't mean companies won't get sued or that by being sued it's "problematic." Sometimes it's just bizarre...

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Basic features, no... but specific methods and systems, yes.

Absolutely correct. That's for a court to decide if it's put to the test. FWIW, the patent I mentioned, applied to searching within emails for specific text strings (fairly basic) is owned by Google. They've been very quietly targeting specific types of technology patents by the looks of things.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 38
Open source

So all Apple has to do if they want to use it is acknowledge Google in their license agreement in much the same way as Google does with WebKit in Android and Chrome.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Open source

So all Apple has to do if they want to use it is acknowledge Google in their license agreement in much the same way as Google does with WebKit in Android and Chrome.

What about that recent Google notification patent? Same thing?

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Open source

So all Apple has to do if they want to use it is acknowledge Google in their license agreement in much the same way as Google does with WebKit in Android and Chrome.

What's open source?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What's open source?

Why Android of course, it's one of it's strongest marketing points.

According to some Apple holds the monopoly on using MARKETING to BRAINWASH iSHEEP in order to sell OVERPRICED, inferior products this being the sole reason for it's "flash in the pan" success.*

*the proceeding post may contain large quantities of sarcasm, which may cause allergic reactions among those afflicted with fandroipsychosis, if problems persist please consult a doctor.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by squiddy20 View Post

Annnd look right there in the left hand side of the page you linked to and you will see "Filling date: Jan 30, 2009", a full 2.5 years BEFORE Apple's "Notification Center" was even previewed.

If you're going to insult the competition, at least make sure you're not dead wrong.

My post wasn't made to insult anyone. I was merely pointing out that Google has one interesting patent there if it gets the USPTO's blessing.

Cut down on the haterade and try to not react so harshly in future.
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
post #28 of 38
In a move industry analysts describe as "inevitable," this week Johnson & Johnson has acquired patents on both itching and scratching. In a unrelated story, company executives deny allegations that a cross of poison ivy and kudzu has breached a containment facility at the multi-national's New Jersey-based genetic engineering division.

Now if someone can only manage to acquire rights to the gesture which resembles slowly shaking a beer can up and down, they can really get rich.

This is the sort of grotesquerie that results when corporate interest buy and sell legislators a six pack at a time. As a long-term HIV survivor, I've donated buckets of blood to researchers attempting to determine why I'm not dead. I'm sure any useful discovery will be patented, at which point I suppose I can look forward to being sued for unauthorized possession of my own genome.
post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Now if someone can only manage to acquire rights to the gesture which resembles slowly shaking a beer can up and down, they can really get rich.

That might have already happened.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely correct. That's for a court to decide if it's put to the test. FWIW, the patent I mentioned, applied to searching within emails for specific text strings (fairly basic) is owned by Google. They've been very quietly targeting specific types of technology patents by the looks of things.

Why do you say that the patent is owned by Google. It blatantly obvious that the assignee (OWNER) of that patent is Hewlett-Packard?
post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Why Android of course, it's one of it's strongest marketing points.

It may be a strong marketing point in getting manufacturers to use it. I doubt very many buyers of Android phones care at all, nor even know what open source is in the first place. I don't think "open source" is even a minor selling point for the average buyer.

In any case the Android OS may be open source. . or not. The individual pieces and patents used outside the package would not unless deemed so by the holder.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I want to see what happens with this bad boy: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Notification center what?

Before I burst your bubble I need to point out a certain individual who I worked with at NeXT whose name is all over these Patents:

Jeffrey Yaksick [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-yaksick/1/560/8a9]

As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.

Jeff is a great guy. He's no Keith Ohlfs, but then again he followed Keith to WebTV where Keith developed WebTV UI.

What I have noticed are several ex-NeXT colleagues of mine who have begun to recently leave Google to do other start ups.

The Valley is a small world.

For you see, 9/10 great hardware/OS ideas come from folks who worked for a Steven P. Jobs corporation.

It's amazing how few of these new companies have anything worth a crap to crow about without former talent from Steve's own visionary teams to aide in their efforts.
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Why do you say that the patent is owned by Google. It blatantly obvious that the assignee (OWNER) of that patent is Hewlett-Packard?

. . .and now owned by Google.

HP transferred it to them a few months ago along with several others that appear handpicked, tho the reasons for those specific ones isn't clear.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Before I burst your bubble I need to point out a certain individual who I worked with at NeXT whose name is all over these Patents:

Jeffrey Yaksick [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-yaksick/1/560/8a9]

As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.

Jeff is a great guy. He's no Keith Ohlfs, but then again he followed Keith to WebTV where Keith developed WebTV UI.

What I have noticed are several ex-NeXT colleagues of mine who have begun to recently leave Google to do other start ups.

The Valley is a small world.

For you see, 9/10 great hardware/OS ideas come from folks who worked for a Steven P. Jobs corporation.

It's amazing how few of these new companies have anything worth a crap to crow about without former talent from Steve's own visionary teams to aide in their efforts.

Then perhaps we can look forward to another whisper campaign attacking someone's reputation if this patent ever becomes an issue: Jeff clearly stole the whole idea from Steve Jobs while working under him years ago.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Before I burst your bubble...

Congratulations to Jeffrey Yaksick. I'm sure he has had a wonderful career in The Valley and was a great guy to work with.

May I ask why you think his previous employment history would burst some imaginary bubble?
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Before I burst your bubble I need to point out a certain individual who I worked with at NeXT whose name is all over these Patents:

As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.

That's knee-slappingly hilarious. Truly, it is.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

In a way, this smacks of hubris more than anything I've seen on either side.

When the slide-to-unlock feature was demonstrated, it was an novel solution to an novel problem. So some engineers looked at the solution, made a very slight variation, and then applied for (and got!) a patent. But what could possibly be more derivative than this? You might argue that the initial slide to unlock idea wasn't worth a patent. I'd disagree, but I could see someone making that argument. But this? Please. They didn't independently come up with a novel idea. They just did a very slight variation. Tiny variations are not supposed to be patentable.

In my opinion, if slide-to-unlock deserves a patent, so does this. Then again, I don't think slide-to-unlock deserves a patent. It is after all "an obvious idea any engineer in the field would have had"...
I'll even go further... it is the kind of technology you'd find in a fantasy book.

"The dwarf looked at him baffled. The elf put his hand on the silvery door and slid it to the left. To the dwarf's amazement, the engraving of an iron bar covered in runes slid along, and the door silently opened."

I'm no Tolkien, but still, this is believably "fantasy-ish". Patent that? I call the prior art of Bilbo the Hobbit!

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #38 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That might have already happened.

O. M. G.

I could watch that all day.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google version of 'slide-to-unlock' patent published by USPTO