DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for App. 17/552,399 on November 21, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending.
America Invents Act
2. 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
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites therein of a newly amended limitation:
“using by the content delivery device the raw data received from the controlling device to determine at least an orientation of the controlling device relative to the content delivery .
However, there is a lack of support in the disclosure for this limitation, namely the determination of orientation between the controlling device and the content delivery device. Examiner can only find support for determining the orientation of the controlling device relative to the signaling device, as there is ample description of this. It is further unclear why the content delivery device, such as VCRs, DVD players, game consoles ( [0010] ), would be benefitted from knowing and utilizing the orientation relative to the controlling device. Applicant’s disclosure seemingly does not provide any of these details.
Again, there does not seem to be support for the above limitation. Applicant’s arguments do not contain any details for supporting this above claim limitation as well. From some of these arguments, it seems Applicant might have been intending to note the content delivery device receiving the raw data (as noted in the preceding limitation) and this raw data was orientation data. Again, however, this was between the controlling device and the signaling device. In either case, Applicant is asked to clarify, thank you.
5. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1 recites therein of “the signaling device”. However, there is seemingly a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation and how it relates to the rest of the claim is unclear.
To clarify, the claimed language has removed the first instance of “the signaling device”, but the second instance (in the second to last line of the claim, around Line 13 of Claim 1) still remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shlomot
( US 2021/0018991 A1 ) in view of Deck et al. ( US 2022/0189126 A1 ).
Shlomot teaches in Claim 1:
A method for using a controlling device to control a movement of a one of a AR content or a VR content being provided to a display device ( Figure 1, [0020] discloses handheld devices with AR systems using a UPI device 100 (read as a controlling device) ) by a content delivery device ( Figure 2, [0025] discloses a features database 250 which has information on objects of interests. [0026] discloses the handheld device can receive such information through communication component 154 (read database 250 as a content delivery device) ), comprising:
receiving by the controlling device from the content delivery device a radio frequency signal ( [0025] discloses such orientation data (in addition to azimuth of UPI, estimated location parameters, etc) can be used by the features database 250 to obtain features of objects of interest. Figure 2, [0023], [0025] discloses the UPI device 100 and its associated communication component 154, such as GPS, cellular, W-Fi, Bluetooth examples, radio-beacons (read as radio frequency, but also please note the combination below as well). Using these protocols, communication between the UPI device and a handheld device over wireless connections can be established and this is also applicable to the link 240 from the features database 250 to the UPI device 100. Furthermore, the features database 250 provides the user with the identification of the object of interest pointed at by the UPI device, as detailed in Figure 3, steps 350 and 360 );
providing from the controlling device to the content delivery device [raw data associated with a receipt of the radio frequency signal] by the controlling device; using by the content delivery device [the raw data] received from the controlling device to determine at least an orientation of the controlling device relative to the content delivery ( Such information which is communicated can be the estimated orientation of UPI device. Figure 9, [0035] discloses a flowchart which discloses an accelerometer 122 and other sensors of the UPI device can generate a frontal visual representation and this can include a relative 3-dimensional motion/orientation between the UPI device and the handheld device (or identified screen in general; see Figure 8 for a plurality of devices, such as the handheld device, [0039]; read as a signaling device). Such relative motion/orientation is shown in Figure 10 which measure the orientation of 100 relative to the screen of the handheld as well as the individual components therein. Clearly, there is a relationship/relative orientation between the UPI and the handheld device and/or identified screens. To clarify, the features database 250 is linked between 100 and 205 to coordinate the data and as such, that link is a function of detection of these elements, i.e. determined orientation. As for the raw data and indication of a receipt of the radio frequency, etc., please note the combination below ); and
controlling by the content delivery device the movement of the one of the AR content or the VR content on the display device as a function of the determined at least the orientation of the controlling device relative to the signaling device ( Figure 10, [0041] discloses that based on the pointing direction of the UPI, i.e. measured orientation using the accelerometer, etc, interaction with real and virtual objects (objects of interest) that are displayed on the screen of handheld device 830 can be achieved. Each object of interest has its own special virtual interaction, depending on the features database. To clarify, [0040] discloses that the relative motion between the UPI and handheld may be tracked by sensors and also enhanced by using a camera. Using these methods either alone or in conjunction can determine the motion/orientation relative/between the two components (see examples in [0041] of the UPI below the plane or above the plane of the handheld device as examples of orientation determining which object is selected). The orientation determines a change of content (read as movement of AR/VR content). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification at [13] discloses the signaling device is integrated into the display device and Shlomot teaches of a similar concept. To clarify, the object of interest is identified by the features database 250 (read as controlling by the content delivery device) and is then transmitted along link 240 to the UPI device 100 and handheld device 205 );
wherein the controlling device is separate from the display device ( Figure 10 shows the UPI device as the interpreted controlling device and the handheld device, such as 830, are separate devices ); but
Shlomot does not explicitly teach of “raw data associated with a receipt of the radio frequency signal” received from a signaling device located remotely from the controlling device on a radio frequency connection between the controlling device and the signaling device. Furthermore, an emphasis on the raw data being used to determine the orientation of the devices will also be detailed below as well.
Please note the emphasis on the measurable characteristic aspect as Shlomot teaches of the controlling device and signaling device and using radio-beacon signals, [0023].
In the same field of endeavor, communication between devices, Deck teaches of a similar setup with a portable device 100 which can be communicate with equipment 30, ( Deck, Figure 1, [0051] ). Deck teaches in [0032], [0073] of the communication between these two elements, using an angle of arrival (AoA). Furthermore, Deck teaches in [0034], [0074] of also determining the angle of departure (AoD) and by using these values, a pose/orientation of the portable device can be determined relative to the equipment 30, [0074]. [0055] discloses examples of radio frequency signals which can use AoA and AoD signals (read as examples of a measurable characteristic). Furthermore, Deck teaches in [0063] of a server 160 which can process the data (including the above angles, etc) to store/provide information associated with real objects, such as the identity, status or characteristic of the object (similar to the features database of Shlomot). To clarify, the data transmitted between the portable device 100 and the remote server 160 (read as akin to the UPI device and features database of Shlomot, respectively) can be a radio frequency data indicating angles of arrival/departure (read as raw data). Deck teaches in [0024]-[0026] of using the signals to determine the object of interest and positioning of the object in images using algorithms, the AoA/AoD, etc. As combined with Shlomot, who also teaches of radio frequency, AoA and AoD characteristics can be used to also determine the orientation of the elements relative to each other. Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure at [0020] notes the raw data can eb provided from the controlling device 10 the signaling device, the content delivery device, and/or other devices. In the same way, Shlomot teaches in Figure 2 of transmission of data to and from the various devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would realize processing of such data could be done at a variety of devices in the system, essentially rendering this a design choice issue.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the AoA and AoD aspects, as taught by Deck, with the motivation that more precise positioning of acquired images (of the elements) can be determined, ( Deck, [0013] ).
Shlomot teaches in Claim 2:
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the display device comprises a television. ( Figure 8, [0034] notes a plurality of display screens which can interact with the UPI device. While one screen can be a handheld device 830, another example can be a TV screen 820. The same concepts of determining an interaction between the UPI and the handheld device can be applied to a TV screen as well )
Shlomot teaches in Claim 3:
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the display device comprises a projector. ( Figure 8, [0034] notes a plurality of display screens which can interact with the UPI device. While one screen can be a handheld device 830, another example can be a presentation screen 840 in a classroom or a lecture hall. Respectfully, examiner asserts the figure shows a projection screen. The same concepts of determining an interaction between the UPI and the handheld device can be applied to a TV screen as well )
Shlomot teaches in Claim 4:
The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the controlling device comprises a hand-held, remote control device. ( [0006] discloses the UPI device can be used similar to a remote control. As shown, it is handheld so the user can interact with the display screens )
Shlomot teaches in Claim 5:
The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the controlling device comprises a hand- held, remote control device. ( [0006] discloses the UPI device can be used similar to a remote control. As shown, it is handheld so the user can interact with the display screens )
10. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shlomot
( US 2021/0018991 A1 ) in view of Deck et al. ( US 2022/0189126 A1 ), as applied to
Claim 1, further in view of Mars et al. ( US 2021/0312025 A1 ).
As per Claim 6:
Shlomot does not explicitly teach “wherein the radio frequency connection comprises a Bluetooth low-energy communications connection.”
However, the Bluetooth protocol has several well known variations. To emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, Bluetooth communication between devices, Mars teaches of a wireless interface to provide wireless data transfers between a computing device and external sources, ( Mars, Figure 1, [0077] ), similar to Shlomot. In particular, [0077] discloses various examples of wireless protocols, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Ultra-Wide Band (UWB), Wi-Fi, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the various types of Bluetooth protocols, with the motivation that these are well known protocols and Shlomot can implement this as one of the protocols of Bluetooth which Shlomot already uses, ( Mars, [0077] ).
As per Claim 7:
Shlomot does not explicitly teach “wherein the radio frequency connection comprises an ultra-wide band communications connection.”
However, the Bluetooth protocol has several well known variations. To emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, Bluetooth communication between devices, Mars teaches of a wireless interface to provide wireless data transfers between a computing device and external sources, ( Mars, Figure 1, [0077] ), similar to Shlomot. In particular, [0077] discloses various examples of wireless protocols, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Ultra-Wide Band (UWB), Wi-Fi, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the various types of Bluetooth protocols, with the motivation that these are well known protocols and Shlomot can implement this as one of the protocols of Bluetooth which Shlomot already uses, ( Mars, [0077] ).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments considered, but are respectfully not persuasive.
Please note the updated rejection in light of the claim amendments and the inclusion of a 112 rejection for lack of antecedent basis/lack of claim definition (previously existing issue that seemingly was not addressed by Applicant) as well a 112 rejection for new matter.
To address the new matter rejection, Applicant’s disclosure repeatedly mentions and details determining the orientation between the controlling device and the signaling device, as it understandable given the orientation is important to determine the object of interest, etc. However, Examiner cannot find details/support for the determination of orientation of the controlling device relative to the content delivery device. From Applicant’s arguments, it seems this limitation may have been misworded as the orientation data, as raw data, is provided to the content delivery device, but not focused on the orientation of/for/relative to the content delivery device itself.
Respectfully, Applicant is asked to clarify this limitation, provide the location of support, etc.
Conclusion
12. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 EST.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621