Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Cellphones Patents

Microsoft Patents Whacking Your Phone To Silence It 214

another random user writes with news of a patent application from Microsoft that details a method for silencing your phone by giving it a whack. "There are a variety of circumstances under which it may be desirable to quickly control a device without having to interact with a traditional user interface. For example, often mobile device users forget to set their mobile devices in a silent or vibrate mode and the device rings or makes sounds at an inopportune moment." And yes, 'whack' is the technical term used in the patent (20120231838): "receiving information indicative of acceleration of the mobile communications device; determining correlation between the information indicative of acceleration of the mobile communications device and exemplar whack event data; and based at least on the correlation, controlling an audio signal of the mobile communications device." This method is not recommended for controlling the audio output of animals or children.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Patents Whacking Your Phone To Silence It

Comments Filter:
  • Geeze.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ibsteve2u ( 1184603 ) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @02:32AM (#41350399)
    Talk about an obvious use for a g-force sensor...what's next? Somebody patenting using a screwdriver for a chisel or to open paint cans?
  • Re:Geeze.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @03:42AM (#41350597)

    If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

    Actually, my Nexus S (which is already a two year old model I think) has been doing this ever since I can remember.

    In fact, that's probably why Microsoft used the word "whack", and not "shake" or "move". If they had used any of those other words, a simple bing search [bing.com] (yes, even a bing search I tell you) would have uncovered multiple instances of prior art on both Android and on the iPhone.

    No doubt, they'll try to use this little play on words in their commercials to say how unique the feature is, and how they're the only one who have it because they patented the idea.

  • Re:Groan! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @04:02AM (#41350655) Journal

    One doesn't "hit an alrm clock". One presses a button that is wide and shallow enough that a blow from one's hand will activate it.

    In theory one presses a wide button. In practice millions of people hit their alarm clocks. This creates the pretense that the device may be silenced in a non-destructive manner, while ensuring continued regular demand for new alarm clocks. It's really quite brilliant on Microsoft's part. By encouraging this model of behavior they can inflate their sales figures and retention percentages ("9 out of 10 Windows Phone owners buy another Windows Phone each year").

  • by drphil ( 320469 ) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:37AM (#41351297)

    ... is amazing.
    "Microsoft's patent here seems obvious..."
    Really? well, I don't know about the inner workings of all cell phones, but I've yet seen a model that I can silence with a single instant button touch or one that uses an accelerometer to transmit a single clear command to the phone. -- Others may come up with examples which is great. Third parties can now (or soon) file with the USPTO to put prior art not considered by the examiner into the official record. This is a very recent change and I don't recall the details. It may be active just for business patents right now, but eventually all patent apps will be included and this one likely won't be examined before that rule is opened to all patents. So prep your arguments now! In any case the mere existence of accelerometers probably would not constitute obviousness which seems to be the main point being made by most.

    "...and should have never been granted"
    Well, it hasn't. This is only an application published 18 months after filing. With the current backlog in the USPTO, it won't be examined for another 2 years.

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...