DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the RCE filed 29 January 2026. Claims 1-8, 10, 24-32, 47, and 52-54 are pending. Claims 1 and 24 are independent claims. Claims 1, 7, 24, and 30 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 8-9) that Behzadi does not teach the newly amended claims which further specify both the movement and the pointing phase of the motion-based gesture and determined using signals generate by the movement sensors of the electronic device. Specifically, Applicant argues that Behzadi may teach the recognition of a movement phase based on movement sensors but these sensors are not disclosed as being used to determine the pointing phase.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant admits that Behzadi uses movement sensors in the movement phase. However, Behzadi also then explicitly teaches that detecting the orientation of the device to see if it is oriented towards another device. In other words, Behzadi explicitly teaches using sensors to detect a change of orientation of a device towards another device (interpreted as the movement phase) and further, detecting that the first device points in the range of the second device for a threshold amount of time (pointing phase).
Applicant further argues (pg. 9) that “[w]hile Behzadi discusses movement of an electronic device, and determining the devices that the electronic device is being used to point towards (through two different processes), it is not specifically noted that the detected movement is limited to recognition of a predetermined motion-based gesture. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons noted above. The predetermined motion-based gesture is the movement of the device, orientating it towards the second device.
The foregoing applies to all independent claims and their dependent claims.
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, 24, 47, and 52 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behzadi (US 2020/0356221 A1) hereinafter known as Behzadi.
Regarding independent claim 1, Behzadi teaches:
sensing motion of the handheld electronic device based on signals generated by one or more movement sensors of the handheld electronic device; (Behzadi: ¶[0208]; Behzadi teaches detecting movement of the device. ¶[0334] further teaches the device using an accelerometer or other sensor to determine its orientation.)
recognizing that the sensed motion includes a motion-based gesture comprising movement of the handheld electronic device during a movement phase indicative of a predetermined motion-based gesture, the movement phase terminating with a pointing phase so that the motion-based gesture is a single motion-based gesture comprising both the movement phase and the pointing phase determined by the signals generated by the or more movement sensors, the movement phase and the pointing phase being physically integrated together, the motion-based gesture during the movement phase indicating an intention for an interaction between the handheld electronic device and the second device of a plurality of potential devices, so as to avoid false signaling of the intention; (Behzadi: Fig. 6E-6J and ¶[0208]-¶[0212]; Behzadi teaches detecting movement of the device and then pointing the device at another device, in order to pair with the other device. The movement is the electronic device beginning to change its orientation relative to the other electronic device. ¶[0213] further teaches detecting that the orientation of the electronic device is oriented toward another electronic device for a threshold amount of time.)
responsive to recognition of the predetermined motion-based gesture, selecting the second device from the plurality of potential devices based on further signals from: the one or more movement sensors: one or more other components of the handheld electronic device; or a combination thereof, said further signals indicative of a direction in which the handheld electronic device is pointing during the pointing phase solely at the end of the motion-based gesture; and (Behzadi: Fig. 6E-6J and ¶[0212]-¶[0217]; Behzadi teaches detecting movement of the device and then pointing the device at another device, in order to pair with the other device. Behzadi teaches pairing with device “D”.)
…
...
An embodiment of Behzadi does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
wherein the further signals are indicative of an angle of arrival of a directional wireless signal between the handheld electronic device and the second device, the angle of arrival being relative to a ray extending along a predetermined axis of the handheld electronic device and extending from a center of the handheld electronic device; (Behzadi: ¶[0211]; Behzadi teaches the device being within a predetermined range of angles to make the sharing option selectable.)
after a predetermined condition is met and the second device is selected, initiating a user interaction for remotely interacting with the second device, and wherein initiating the user action comprises launching an application on the handheld electronic device for interacting with the selected device, the application being specific to the selected device, wherein the predetermined condition is at least partially met when the recognized motion-based gesture is a predetermined motion- based gesture having a particular predetermined pattern for interacting with the second device. (Behzadi: Fig. 6J and ¶[0217]; Behzadi teaches pairing with device “D” and now being able to share content, wherein the device can initiate a process to share an image with the other device. Being oriented relative to the other device is interpreted as the predetermined condition having a particular predetermined pattern. ¶[0486] further teaches sharing content including launching an application associated with a sharing protocol.)
Behzadi is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine using a handheld device, sensing motion, choosing a device to communicate with further initiating communication with the device. An embodiment of Behzadi already teaches choosing a device based on movement gestures. Behzadi further provides the additional functionality of initiating communication with the device. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow the user to interact with the device.
Regarding claims 24 and 47, these claims recite a handheld electronic device and computer-readable medium that performs the method of claim 1 and 8; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 52, Behzadi further teaches the method of claim 1 (as cited above).
Behzadi further teaches:
further comprising, after the predetermined condition is met and the second device is identified, displaying an icon indicative of the second device on a display of the handheld electronic device, and varying position of the icon on the display according to one or both of: an angle between a pointing direction of the handheld electronic device and a direction of the second device relative to the handheld electronic device; and a measurement of likelihood that the handheld device is being pointed toward the second device. (Behzadi: Figs. 6D-6J and ¶[0257]-¶[0258]; Behzadi teaches displaying an icon of the device that is connected and then varying the icon based on the phone rotating (within a range of angles) toward another device and thus, eventually changing the icon towards the new device that the phone is pointing at. The foregoing teaches measuring the angle and further teaches measuring the likelihood that the device is being pointed toward the second device, i.e. range of angles. Lastly, Figs. 6D-6J show varying the icon which changes positions as the phone begins to point to a different device and eventually changes completely when the different device is connected.)
Claims 8, 10, 31, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behzadi in view of Chung (US 11,410,541 B1) hereinafter known as Chung.
Regarding claim 8, Behzadi further teaches the method of claim 1 (as cited above).
Behzadi does not explicitly teach but Chung teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition further comprises detecting presence of a signal indicative of pressing of a physical button of the handheld electronic device or a virtual button displayed on a touchscreen of the handheld electronic device. (Chung: Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 5-34; Chung teaches the user pressing a button to initiate gesture command mode.)
Chung is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely as taught in Behzadi with detecting presence of a signal indicating of pressing of a physical button as taught in Chung. Chung provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi to include teachings of Chung because the combination would allow the user to initiate the gesture, as suggested by Chung: col. 5, lines 5-34.
Regarding claim 10, Behzadi further teaches the method of claim 1 (as cited above).
Behzadi does not explicitly teach but Chung teaches:
wherein recognizing that the motion-based gesture is the predetermined motion-based gesture comprises recognizing signals, generated by the one or more movement sensors, indicative of movement of the handheld electronic device from a first position to a second position in an upward arcing motion, wherein the first position corresponds to the handheld electronic device being proximate to a hip of the user and pointing downward, and the second position corresponds to the handheld electronic device being held at the end of a straightened arm and pointing toward the second device. (Chung: Figs. 2A-2B and 7A; Chung teaches the user bringing the device up from a downward position.)
Chung is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely as taught in Behzadi with detection of vertical motion as taught in Chung. Chung provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi to include teachings of Chung because the combination would allow multiple ranges of motion.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, this claim recites a handheld electronic device that performs the method of claims 8 and 10; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 2, 7, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behzadi in view of Davies (US 2020/0301512 A1) hereinafter known as Davies.
Regarding claim 2, Behzadi further teaches the method of claim 1 (as cited above).
Behzadi does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2.
However, Davies further teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition further comprises recognizing a confirmation input from the user following the recognized motion-based gesture. (Davies: ¶[0005]; Davies teaches prompting the user the confirm a gesture.)
Davies is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely as taught in Behzadi with a prompt to the user for confirmation as taught in Davies. Davies provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chung to include teachings of Davies because the combination would allow the user to intentionally perform the gesture, as suggested by Davies: ¶[0005].
Regarding claim 7, Behzadi in view of Davies further teaches the method of claim 2 (as cited above).
Davies further teaches:
further comprising, after recognizing that the motion-based gesture is the predetermined motion-based gesture, after the second device is identified, and prior to detecting the confirmation input, prompting the user to provide the confirmation input to confirm an intention to interact with the second device. (Davies: ¶[0005]; Davies teaches prompting the user the confirm a gesture.)
Regarding claims 25 and 30, this claim recites a handheld electronic device that performs the method of claims 2 and 7; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 6 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behzadi in view of Davies (US 2020/0301512 A1) hereinafter known as Davies.
Regarding claim 6, Behzadi in view of Davies further teaches the method of claim 2 (as cited above).
Behzadi in view of Davies does not explicitly teach but Chung further teaches:
wherein recognizing the confirmation input comprises detecting presence of a signal indicative of pressing of a physical button of the handheld electronic device or a virtual button displayed on a touchscreen of the handheld electronic device. (Chung: Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 10-17; Chung teaches the user pressing a button to select a device.)
Chung is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely as taught in Behzadi with detecting presence of a signal indicating of pressing of a physical button as taught in Chung. Chung provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi to include teachings of Chung because the combination would allow the user to initiate the gesture, as suggested by Chung: col. 5, lines 5-34.
Regarding claim 29, this claim recites a handheld electronic device that performs the method of claim 6; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 3-5 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behzadi in view of Davies in view of Kamath (US 2020/0104038 A1) hereinafter known as Kamath.
Regarding claim 3, Behzadi in view of Davies further teaches the method of claim 2 (as cited above).
Behzadi in view of Davies does not explicitly teach but Kamath further teaches:
wherein recognizing the confirmation input comprises recognizing that the sensed motion further includes a second predetermined motion-based gesture comprising movement of the handheld electronic device, the second predetermined motion-based gesture following the predetermined motion-based gesture. (Kamath: Figs. 6A-6T and 7A and 7H and ¶[0249] and ¶[0287]; Kamath teaches further gesture to communicate with the second device.)
Kamath is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely and a prompt to the user for confirmation as taught in Behzadi in view of Davies with a further gesture to communicate with the device as taught in Kamath. Kamath provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi and Davies to include teachings of Kamath because the combination would allow the user to confirm the device.
Regarding claim 4, Behzadi in view of Davies further teaches the method of claim 2 (as cited above).
Behzadi in view of Davies does not explicitly teach but Kamath further teaches:
wherein recognizing the confirmation input comprises recognizing, using the one or more movement sensors, that the handheld electronic device is rotated in place. (Kamath: ¶[0287]; Kamath teaches a third portion confirmation gesture. ¶[0222] further teaches processing a gesture such as the twist gesture.)
Kamath is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely and a prompt to the user for confirmation as taught in Behzadi in view of Davies with a further gesture to communicate with the device as taught in Kamath. Kamath provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi and Davies to include teachings of Kamath because the combination would allow the user to confirm the device.
Regarding claim 5, Behzadi in view of Davies further teaches the method of claim 2 (as cited above).
Behzadi in view of Davies does not explicitly teach but Kamath further teaches:
wherein recognizing the confirmation input comprises recognizing, using the one or more movement sensors, that the handheld electronic device is held in position following said predetermined motion-based gesture without further motion for a predetermined amount of time. (Kamath: ¶[0259]; Kamath teaches detecting a device at a particular attitude for at least a threshold amount of time. ¶[0051] defines attitude as the device location.)
Kamath is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling devices remotely using motion data. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user controlling a second device using the motion of a first device remotely and a prompt to the user for confirmation as taught in Behzadi in view of Davies with a further gesture to communicate with the device as taught in Kamath. Kamath provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi and Davies to include teachings of Kamath because the combination would allow the user to confirm the device.
Regarding claims 26-28, this claim recites a handheld electronic device that performs the method of claims 3-5; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behzadi in view of Ataei (US 2023/0296958 A1) hereinafter known as Ataei.
Regarding claim 53, Behzadi further teaches the method of claim 1 (as cited above).
Behzadi further teaches:
detecting the direction in which the handheld electronic device is pointing by adjusting the angle of arrival by an offset angle, the offset angle being an angle between a first ray from the handheld electronic device to a center of the second device and a second ray from the handheld electronic device to a location of the second device other than a center of the second device ... . (Behzadi: Figs. 6D-6J and ¶[0211] and ¶[0257]-¶[0258]; Behzadi teaches recognizing the pointing of the device as well as a range of angles, which is interpreted as the offset angle. The foregoing teaches a range of rays that includes pointing at the device to being offcenter.)
Behzadi does not explicitly teach but Ataei teaches:
... and at which the directional wireless signal is transmitted or received. (Ataei: ¶[0215]; Ataei teaches steering a beam to a target location.)
Ataei is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. directing a transmission. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user wirelessly connecting and controlling a second device by pointing a device to a second device as well as having an offset range of angles as taught in Behzadi with further pointing the signal to a specific location as taught in Ataei. Ataei provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Behzadi to include teachings of Ataei because the combination would allow the beam to reach the target location, as suggested by Ataei: ¶[0112].
Regarding claim 54, this claim recites a handheld electronic device that performs the method of claims 53; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118