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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending, claims 1, 9-10,12 and 18 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 12 and 18 by adding limitations citing that the first and second device are for use with a common extended reality application. Applicant argues that LIU does not disclose the first and second devices are for use with a common extended reality application. The examiner explains that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The examiner however has provided a second reference AVRAHAMI et al. (US 2020/0258303 A1) to show that the cross charging may be performed in an extended reality application environment to move the application forward.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 11,011,931 B2, hereinafter LIU)in view of AVRAHAMI et al. (US 2020/0258303 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18 (claim 1is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), LIU discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of devices including a first device and a second device (See Fig.3, Items#302 and 304, disclose a first device and a second device);
one or more processors (See Fig.1, Items#308, discloses devices 302 and 304 each comprising a processor and Fig.1, discloses a server 130 comprising a processor); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations (See Fig.3, Items#306, disclose each of the devices 302 and 304 comprising a memory. Col.2, lines 19-24, disclose the memory comprising instructions to control the power transfer. Fig.4, discloses the priority management rules system 401 includes memory 108 for saving records and profile data. The presence of instruction to perform the power efficiency calculation 414 and state analysis 412 is inherent) comprising:
receiving state data associated with the plurality of devices including a first device, the state data including power condition data of the plurality of devices (See Col.7, lines 1-4, disclose receiving user device battery status from each of the plurality of the devices in the cross- charging system, Col.8, lines 17-25, disclose the battery data may include battery status, remaining charge, device priority and device identifier);
determining, based on the power condition data, a second device of the plurality of the devices to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See Col.7, lines 28-34, discloses the selection of a first wireless device providing charging and a second wireless device receiving charging is done based on updated priority. Fig.9, Step#902-904, disclose determining that a first device requires charging and initiation charging between second device and a first device based on the priority);
generating a power distribution command configured to cause wireless power transmission from the second device to the first device (See Fig.9, Step#902-904, disclose determining that a first device requires charging and initiation charging between second device and a first device based on the priority); and
sending the power distribution command to at least one of the first device or the second device to initiate wireless power transmission from the second device to the first device (See Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
However, LIU does not disclose the first device, and the second device are for use with a common extended reality application.
The examiner explains that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. However, the examiner also provided AVRAHAMI to address the newly added limitation.
AVRAHAMI discloses an extended reality application comprising a first device for use with a common extended reality application and a second device for use with the common extended reality (See Fig.1b and Par.59, disclose a virtual reality application comprising a head mounted device and two controllers).
LIU and AVRAHAMI are analogous art since they both deal with battery powered devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by LIU with the teachings of AVRAHAMI by applying the cross charging/power sharing system disclosed by LIU to the controllers of AVRAHAMI for the benefit of extending the operating time of the controllers.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the state data further comprises an indication of a running application associated with the plurality of devices, and the operations further comprise:
determining, based at least in part on the running application, an importance rank of the plurality of devices (See LIU, Col.9, line 43-52, disclose priority is determined based on user activities and the idle vs active state is considered in determining charging event. User activities involving video consume more energy than phone calls. Video application running gives a higher priority to the device than another performing phone calls among other factors); and
determining, based on the power condition data and the importance rank, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
Regarding claims 3 and 14 (claim 3 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the state data further comprises a current or predicted activity level associated with the plurality of devices, and the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the current or predicted activity level associated with the plurality of devices, an importance rank of the plurality of devices (See LIU, Col.9, line 45, discloses determining priority based on predicted usage i.e. predicted activity or user activities i.e. current activity); and
determining, based on the power condition data and the importance rank, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
Regarding claim 4, LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the state data further comprises a plurality of importance scores associated with the plurality of devices, and the operations further comprise:
determining the plurality of importance scores associated with the plurality of devices (See LIU, Col.9, lines 41-43, disclose assigning a priority score of 0 to 9); and
determining, based on the power condition data and the plurality of importance scores, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
Regarding claim 7, LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the state data further comprises location data associated with the plurality of devices (See LIU, Col.13, lines 20-27, disclose distance between devices is considered), and the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the power condition data and the location data of the plurality of devices, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.13, lines 20-27 and Fig.11, Step#1102 disclose calculating power transfer loss and using in determining priority in Step#506).
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 20 (claim 8 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, the operations further comprising:
determining, based on the power condition data, a charge imbalance between the first device and at least one of the plurality of the devices (See LIU, Col.3, lines 6-10, disclose determining priority based on remaining power capacity. Receiving battery capacities indicates that an imbalance i.e. difference in capacity is considered); and
determining, based on the power condition data and the charge imbalance, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
Regarding claim 10, LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the system comprises a head-mounted device configured to display an extended reality environment associated with the common extended reality application (See AVRAHAM, Par.59 and Fig.1b, discloses a virtual reality head mounted headset).
Regarding claim 11, LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising determining, based on the power condition data, the first device of the plurality of the devices to wirelessly receive power from second device (See LIU, Col.3, lines 6-10, disclose determining priority based on remaining power capacity and Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
Regarding claim 19, LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the state data comprises at least one of:
location data associated with the plurality of devices,
application data including an indication of a running application associated with the plurality of devices (See LIU, Col.9, line 43-52, disclose priority is determined based on user activities and the idle vs active state is considered in determining charging event. User activities involving video consume more energy than phone calls. Video application running gives a higher priority to the device than another performing phone calls among other factors),
activity data indicating a current or predicted activity level associated with the plurality of devices, preference data indicating a dominant hand preference associated with a user indicating whether the user favors right-handed use or left-handed use, or
charge cycle data indicating a number of charge cycles associated with the plurality of devices, and
wherein determining the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device is further based on the at least one of the location data, the application data (See Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority which as discussed above is based on application being used), the activity data, the preference data, or the charge cycle data.
NOTE: The claim limitations are listed in the alternative, the claim is met by addressing the application data limitation as discussed above.
Regarding claims 6 and 16 (Claim 6 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, and the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the power condition data, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.3, lines 6-10, disclose determining priority management based on remaining power capacity, also See LIU, Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority). LIU and AVRAHAMI further disclose using user profile data for assigning charging priority (See LIU, Col.2, lines 43-52).
However, LIU and AVRAHAMI do not disclose the user profile data comprises a dominant hand preference associated with a user indicating whether the user favors right-handed use or left-handed use and determining, based on the dominant hand preference, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by LIU and AVRAHAMI by including a preference of hand dominance in determining charging priority for the benefit of ensuring that devices which have more users (right-handed) are given priority over devices with less users (left-handed).
Claim(s) 5, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of AVRAHAMI and in view of NICHOLSON et al. (US 2017/0366028 A1, hereinafter NICHOLSON).
Regarding claims 5 and 15 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, and further disclose determining, based on the power condition data, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See LIU, Col.3, lines 6-10, disclose determining priority management base don remaining power capacity, also See LIU, Col.7, lines 17-35 and Fig.9, disclose sending priority information to the electronic devices and initiating charging from one device to the other based on updated priority).
However, LIU and AVRAHAMI do not disclose wherein the state data further comprises a number of charge cycles associated with the plurality of devices, and the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the number of charge cycles, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device.
NICHOLSON discloses a system for power sharing between a plurality of devices based on state data, wherein the state data further comprises a number of charge cycles associated with the plurality of devices (See Par.63, discloses using battery cycle count to determine which device would provide/receive power), and the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the number of charge cycles, the second device to wirelessly provide power to the first device (See Par.63, determining which device to be charged/discharged based on the battery cycle count).
LIU, AVRAHAMI and NICHOLSON are analogous art since they all deal with battery powered electronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by LIU and AVRAHAMI with the teachings of NICHOLSON by using battery charge count to determine charging priority (which device to provide charge and which device to receive) for the benefit of protecting the battery against degradation caused by an increased number of charging cycles.
Regarding 9, LIU and AVRAHAMI disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, However LIU and AVRAHAMI, disclose the power distribution command is sent from a PMR server but does not disclose wherein the first device receives the power distribution command from the second device.
NICHOLSON discloses a system for power distribution between a first device and a second device based on a power distribution command, wherein the first device receives the power distribution command from the second device (See Par.7, discloses determining to provide power between the first information handling device and the second information handling device via the USB connection includes receiving a request for power from the first information handling device).
LIU, AVRAHAMI and NICHOLSON are analogous art since they all deal with battery powered electronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by LIU and AVRAHAMI with the teachings of NICHOLSON such that the power distribution command is generated and sent by the second device to the first device to cause the second device to wirelessly charge the first device for the benefit of ensuring charge sharing by eliminating the need for a middle node between the first device and second device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859