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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 13, 14-21, and 23 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 25 and 26 are new. Thus, claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 14-21, 23, and 25-26 are pending in this patent application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112 Section on pages 11-13, the Attorney remarks that the Examiner is incorrect in submitting claims 2 and 13 not being in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As the Attorney makes clear, claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled, but their claim limitations are now a part of independent claims 1, 12, and 23.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney on the claim limitations being in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Attorney suggests that the limitation of “the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold” does not define when the file transfer app starts. The step of “starting a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship” is supposed to define when the target app starts. This is not clearly laid out in the claims because what decisions are made to start a target app “based on the relative location relationship” other than the Z-axis distance comparison to the distance threshold. Thus, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) will remain.
In the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101 Section on pages 13-17, the Attorney traverses the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 under reasonings that the claims are not directed to a mental process and the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney on the claims not being directed to a mental process. The Attorney remarks that claim 1 recites “detecting, by one or more sensors of the first device, location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device” which cannot practically be performed in the human mind, even if aided by pen or paper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the human mind is capable of determining a relative location relationship between two devices. The usage of sensors does not automatically disqualify the claim from being able to be performed in the human mind. The sensor example the Attorney provides on claim 15 has to do with a sensor for taking periodic blood glucose measurements, which is clear that the human mind cannot perform the tasks of that sensor. The sensor in this claimed invention is for determining a relative location relationship between two devices which is possible in the human mind based on an innate understanding of distance and/or angles that a human can perform in the mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The Attorney remarks that an improvement to a technological process is shown in the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed invention does not clearly recite its improvement to a technological process in comparison to the explanation given in the Remarks. Further amendments to the claims focusing on the technological improvement outlined in the Remarks is suggested.
In the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 Section on pages 17-21, the Attorney remarks that the Examiner fails to render obvious the pending claims because the combinations of the prior art references fail to clearly disclose starting a target app based on a relative location relationship.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney that the combinations of the prior art references fail to clearly disclose starting a target app based on a relative location relationship. The amendments to claim 1 coming from the limitations of former claim 2 are about the starting of a target app based on the relative location relationship of two devices. The Attorney provides paragraph citations and suggests that Dearman does not disclose consideration of distance between the first and second devices. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Dearman discloses performing operations in response to the first and second devices having certain relative positions [0040]. These relative positions can include proximity in the Z-axis. Additionally, Nakano describes wireless charging which only works within a specific threshold of the device’s battery to the charging device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney and does not believe that the prior art is silent on proximity in the Z-axis of devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. The claims contain the current claimed language “starting a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: … the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold” and the claimed language is indefinite as the file transfer app should always be started as long as the first device and second device are not within the Z-axis distance threshold. The first device and second device are given no upper limit beyond the threshold that limit the starting of the file transfer app, so the file transfer app would always be started beyond the Z-axis distance threshold no matter how far. The target app is started based on the relative location relationship which is given no further specifications other than the Z-axis distance of the devices compared to the predetermined distance threshold.
Additionally, claims 3-8 and 10 are dependent on claim 1, claims 14-21 are dependent on claim 12, and claims 25-26 are dependent on claim 23. None of these claims fix the indefinite nature of the limitations in claims 1, 12, and 23, so these claims are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method implemented by a first device, wherein the method comprises: detecting, by one or more sensors of the first device, location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located in an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises a distance between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system; and starting a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold.”
Under Step 2A Prong I, the limitation “detecting … location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located in an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises a distance between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person may detect/determine a location relationship between the first device and a second device on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally by estimating a distance and/or angle between the devices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong II, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements “one or more sensors of the first device” and “starting a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold.” The additional element “one or more sensors of the first device” represents generic computing components used in the implementation of the claimed invention. The additional element “starting a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold” represents the “apply it” step which is a mere instruction to apply an exception (2106.05(f)). The additional limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception of starting a particular app based on a relative location relationship between two devices and their Z-axis separation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of starting an app based on a relative location relationship between two devices, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from a short side of the second device, and wherein the target app comprises: a screen extension app; or a mouse app (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from the long side of the second device, and wherein the target app comprises a keyboard app (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device, and wherein the target app comprises a wireless charging app (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “verifying security of the second device (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process); and further starting the target app based on the relative location relationship when security verification on the second device is successful (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 8, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “obtaining indication information from a user, wherein the indication information indicates a correspondence between the relative location relationship and the target app (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and further starting the target app based on the indication information (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 10, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “further comprising further starting the target app based on a second relative location relationship between the first device and a third device (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A first device comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device; a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more sensors and the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to: control the one or more sensors to detect the location relationship information; determine, based on the location relationship information, the relative location relationship, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located is an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises an included angle between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system; and start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold.”
Under Step 2A Prong I, the limitation “determine, based on the location relationship information, the relative location relationship, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located is an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises an included angle between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person may determine a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally by estimating a distance and/or angle between the devices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong II, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 12 recites the additional elements “one or more sensors configured to detect location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device; a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more sensors and the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to: control the one or more sensors to detect the location relationship information; … and start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold.” The additional elements “one or more sensors configured to detect location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device; a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more sensors and the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to: …” represent examples of generic computing components that perform merely generic computer functions such as storing and executing instructions for the implementation of the claimed invention. The additional element “control the one or more sensors to detect the location relationship information” represents the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering and a generic transmission of data under MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element “start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold” represents the “apply it” step which is a mere instruction to apply an exception (2106.05(f)). The additional limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception of starting a particular app based on a relative location relationship between two devices and their Z-axis separation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of starting an app based on a relative location relationship between two devices, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 14, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the second device comprises a long side and a short side, wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from the short side, and wherein the target app comprises a projection app (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
As per claim 15, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the second device comprises a long side and a short side, wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from the long side, and wherein the target app comprises a touchpad app (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 15 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
As per claim 16, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device, and wherein the target app comprises a wireless charging app (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 16 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
As per claim 17, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 17 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
As per claim 18, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to: verify security of the second device (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process); further start the target app based on the relative location relationship when security verification on the second device has succeeded (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 18 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
As per claim 19, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to: obtain indication information from a user, wherein the indication information indicates a correspondence between the relative location relationship and the target app (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and further start the target app based on the indication information (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 19 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
As per claim 20, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 19 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to learn the correspondence based on the indication information (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 20 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 19 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 19, above.
As per claim 21, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to further start the target app based on a second relative location relationship between the first device and a third device (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 21 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a first device to: detect, by one or more sensors, location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located is an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises different location areas divided based on a distance between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system and an included angle between the first device and the second device in the spatial coordinate system; and start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold.”
Under Step 2A Prong I, the limitation “detect … location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located is an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises different location areas divided based on a distance between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system and an included angle between the first device and the second device in the spatial coordinate system” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person may determine a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally by estimating a distance and/or angle between the devices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong II, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 23 recites the additional elements “A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a first device to: … one or more sensors … start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold.” The additional elements “A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to: … one or more sensors” represent examples of generic computing components that perform merely generic computer functions such as storing and executing instructions for the implementation of the claimed invention. The additional element “start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; and the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold” represents the “apply it” step which is a mere instruction to apply an exception (2106.05(f)). The additional limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception of starting a particular app based on a relative location relationship between two devices and their Z-axis separation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of starting an app based on a relative location relationship between two devices, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 25, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 23 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first device to: obtain indication information from a user, wherein the indication information indicates a correspondence between the relative location relationship and the target app (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and further start the target app based on the indication information (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 25 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 23 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 23, above.
As per claim 26, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 25 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first device to learn the correspondence based on the indication information (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 26 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 25 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 25, above.
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, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearman (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0234925) in view of Nakano (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0127224).
Regarding independent claim 1, Dearman discloses:
A method implemented by a first device, wherein the method comprises:
detecting, by one or more sensors of the first device, location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device, (Fig. 2 block 32, Fig. 5 block 52, Fig. 8 block 60, and [0049] “By way of example of an operation that may be performed in accordance with an example embodiment to the present invention, reference is now made to FIG. 8. As shown in block 60, the apparatus 10 may include means, such as the processor 12, the sensor(s) 22 or the like, for determining the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device, such as described above in conjunction with block 32 of FIG. 2 and block 52 of FIG. 5.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device is determined by a multitude of sensors.
wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located in an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises a distance between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system; and (Fig. 3 and [0037] “In some embodiments, the apparatus 10, such as the processor 12, the sensor(s) 22 or the like, may be configured to determine the distance to the other devices during the determination of the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device. For example, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to determine the distance between the apparatus and the other devices based on characteristics of the signal (e.g., time traveled, signal strength, signal quality, etc.). By way of example, the second device embodied as a mobile telephone is shown to be closer to the laptop computer 40 in the solid line representation designated 42 than in the dashed line representation designated 42'.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the distance between devices is determined.
starting a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, ([0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution of an application can be performed based on the relative position of the first and second devices.
wherein the target app is:
the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold. ([0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.” and [0041] “In one embodiment, for example, the performance of the operation may include the transfer of a file to the second device for execution thereon, such as the transfer of a media file from the first device to the second device such that the media file may be played by the second device.” and [0044] “As shown in FIG. 6, the movement that is detected may be movement of a second device that causes the second device to overlie a portion of the first device during the movement event. For example, the movement that is detected in one embodiment may be movement of a second device that causes the second device to overlie the display of the first device during the movement event, while the movement that is detected in another embodiment may be movement of the second device that causes the second device to overlie the user interface of the first device, e.g., the display and the keypad in the embodiment of FIG. 6.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the mobile device that moves over top the laptop has the ability to transfer media files from one device to another and can do this while moving over top of the laptop at a predetermined distance.
Dearman does not explicitly disclose:
a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold;
However, Nakano discloses:
a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; (Fig. 1 with power supply apparatus 100 and electronic device 200 and [0019] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a near field communication system according to the first embodiment includes a power supply apparatus 100 and an electronic device 200, which are wireless communication devices. In a communication system according to the first embodiment, when a distance between the power supply apparatus 100 and the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range, the power supply apparatus 100 wirelessly supplies power to the electronic device 200.” and [0092] “When the power receiving antenna 201 has received the supplying power for wireless power supply within the predetermined period of time (S508, YES), the CPU 206 starts a wireless power receiving process in S509. In the wireless power receiving process, the power receiving antenna 201 receives the supplying power for wireless power supply from the power supply apparatus 100, the matching circuit 202 and the rectifying and smoothing circuit 203 convert the power into direct-current power, the power is supplied to the battery 212 via the regulator 205, and the battery 212 is charged.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the wireless power receiving process is started when the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range of the power supply apparatus 100 (electronic device 200 shown to be placed on top of power supply apparatus 100 in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold as seen in Nakano's invention into Dearman's invention because these modifications allow simple substitution of application options for additional use cases for processes/applications to obtain predictable results besides just file transferring between devices.
Regarding claim 3, Dearman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from a short side of the second device, and wherein the target app comprises:
a screen extension app; or
a mouse app. (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 and [0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the presentation of a predefined display and execution of an application can occur based on the position of the second device relative to the first device so a screen extension or projection app can be shown on the mobile device. Additionally, Figs. 3 and 4 show the mobile device on either side of the laptop’s “short” sides.
Regarding claim 5, Dearman discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device, and wherein the target app comprises a wireless charging app.
However, Nakano discloses:
wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device, and wherein the target app comprises a wireless charging app. (Fig. 1 with power supply apparatus 100 and electronic device 200 and [0019] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a near field communication system according to the first embodiment includes a power supply apparatus 100 and an electronic device 200, which are wireless communication devices. In a communication system according to the first embodiment, when a distance between the power supply apparatus 100 and the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range, the power supply apparatus 100 wirelessly supplies power to the electronic device 200.” and [0092] “When the power receiving antenna 201 has received the supplying power for wireless power supply within the predetermined period of time (S508, YES), the CPU 206 starts a wireless power receiving process in S509. In the wireless power receiving process, the power receiving antenna 201 receives the supplying power for wireless power supply from the power supply apparatus 100, the matching circuit 202 and the rectifying and smoothing circuit 203 convert the power into direct-current power, the power is supplied to the battery 212 via the regulator 205, and the battery 212 is charged.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the wireless power receiving process is started when the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range of the power supply apparatus 100 (electronic device 200 shown to be placed on top of power supply apparatus 100 in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device, and wherein the target app comprises a wireless charging app as seen in Nakano's invention into Dearman's invention because these modifications allow simple substitution of application options for additional use cases for processes/applications to obtain predictable results like a wireless charging application/process that is offered so a user can always have enough battery life across a multitude of devices.
Regarding claim 6, Dearman discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device.
However, Nakano discloses:
wherein the second relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device. (Fig. 1 with power supply apparatus 100 and electronic device 200 and [0019] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a near field communication system according to the first embodiment includes a power supply apparatus 100 and an electronic device 200, which are wireless communication devices. In a communication system according to the first embodiment, when a distance between the power supply apparatus 100 and the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range, the power supply apparatus 100 wirelessly supplies power to the electronic device 200.” and [0092] “When the power receiving antenna 201 has received the supplying power for wireless power supply within the predetermined period of time (S508, YES), the CPU 206 starts a wireless power receiving process in S509. In the wireless power receiving process, the power receiving antenna 201 receives the supplying power for wireless power supply from the power supply apparatus 100, the matching circuit 202 and the rectifying and smoothing circuit 203 convert the power into direct-current power, the power is supplied to the battery 212 via the regulator 205, and the battery 212 is charged.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the wireless power receiving process is started when the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range of the power supply apparatus 100 (electronic device 200 shown to be placed on top of power supply apparatus 100 in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the second relative location relationship further comprises that there is an overlapping area between a projection of the first device on the XOY plane and the second device as seen in Nakano's invention into Dearman's invention because these modifications allow applying a known technique to a known method for improvement of certain application interactions based on holding a device over top of another device.
Regarding claim 8, Dearman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining indication information from a user, wherein the indication information indicates a correspondence between the relative location relationship and the target app; and ([0005] “A method, apparatus and computer program product are therefore provided in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention in order to facilitate the provision of user input intended to cause an operation to be performed. In this regard, the method, apparatus and computer program product of an example embodiment may cause an operation to be performed by a first device based upon the relative positions of the first device and a second device. As such, a user may provide input with respect to the performance of an operation in accordance with an example embodiment to the present invention by positioning the first and second devices and without having to enter keystrokes or touch input. In some embodiments, the method, apparatus and computer program product may cause the performance of an operation based upon the relative positions of two or more devices in a manner that is intuitive and, therefore, potentially more memorable for the user.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user can provide input of an operation to perform in accordance with positioning of two devices.
further starting the target app based on the indication information. ([0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user’s provided input can cause the execution of an application performed based on the relative position of the first and second devices.
Regarding claim 10, Dearman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising further starting the target app based on a second relative location relationship between the first device and a third device. (Fig. 3 showing mobile device 42 closer to laptop 40 than mobile device 421 and [0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution of an application can be performed based on the relative position of the first and third devices (laptop 40, mobile device 42, and mobile device 421 representing three devices).
Regarding independent claim 12, Dearman discloses:
A first device comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect location relationship information that identifies a relative location relationship between the first device and a second device; (Fig. 1, Sensor(s) 12 and [0049] “By way of example of an operation that may be performed in accordance with an example embodiment to the present invention, reference is now made to FIG. 8. As shown in block 60, the apparatus 10 may include means, such as the processor 12, the sensor(s) 22 or the like, for determining the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device, such as described above in conjunction with block 32 of FIG. 2 and block 52 of FIG. 5.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device is determined by a multitude of sensors.
a memory configured to store instructions; and (Fig. 1, Memory 14)
one or more processors coupled to the one or more sensors and the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to: (Fig. 1, Processor 12)
control the one or more sensors to detect the location relationship information; (Fig. 2 block 32, Fig. 5 block 52, Fig. 8 block 60, and [0049] “By way of example of an operation that may be performed in accordance with an example embodiment to the present invention, reference is now made to FIG. 8. As shown in block 60, the apparatus 10 may include means, such as the processor 12, the sensor(s) 22 or the like, for determining the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device, such as described above in conjunction with block 32 of FIG. 2 and block 52 of FIG. 5.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device is determined by a multitude of sensors.
determine, based on the location relationship information, the relative location relationship, wherein a plane on which a screen of the second device is located is an XOY plane, and wherein the relative location relationship comprises an included angle between the first device and the second device in a spatial coordinate system; and (Fig. 3 and [0037] “In some embodiments, the apparatus 10, such as the processor 12, the sensor(s) 22 or the like, may be configured to determine the distance to the other devices during the determination of the non-overlapping position of the second device relative to the first device. For example, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to determine the distance between the apparatus and the other devices based on characteristics of the signal (e.g., time traveled, signal strength, signal quality, etc.). By way of example, the second device embodied as a mobile telephone is shown to be closer to the laptop computer 40 in the solid line representation designated 42 than in the dashed line representation designated 42'.” and [0038] “In addition to determining proximity of and distance to one or more other devices, the apparatus 10, such as the processor 12, may determine the relative position of each other device. Although the relative position may be determined in various manners, each other device of one embodiment may transmit a position signal to the apparatus. The position signal may provide the specific location of the other device such that the apparatus, such as the processor, may determine the relative position of the other device based upon the position of the other device and the position of the apparatus as provided, for example, by a position sensor. Additionally or alternatively, the apparatus, such as the processor, the communication interface 16 or the like, may be configured to determine the relative position of the other device based upon the directionality of the signals provided by the other device and received by the communication interface of the apparatus In yet another embodiment, the apparatus, such as the processor, and the other devices may be configured to determine contextual information, such as one or more sensed features, e.g., position, location, orientation with respect to a fixed object, etc., with the relative position of the apparatus to each other device being determined based upon the contextual information.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the distance and angle between devices is determined based on the directionality of the signals between the devices by the sensors.
start a target application (app) based on the relative location relationship, wherein the target app is: ([0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution of an application can be performed based on the relative position of the first and second devices.
the file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a second relative location relationship, wherein the second relative location relationship comprises that the Z-axis distance is greater than the distance threshold. ([0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.” and [0041] “In one embodiment, for example, the performance of the operation may include the transfer of a file to the second device for execution thereon, such as the transfer of a media file from the first device to the second device such that the media file may be played by the second device.” and [0044] “As shown in FIG. 6, the movement that is detected may be movement of a second device that causes the second device to overlie a portion of the first device during the movement event. For example, the movement that is detected in one embodiment may be movement of a second device that causes the second device to overlie the display of the first device during the movement event, while the movement that is detected in another embodiment may be movement of the second device that causes the second device to overlie the user interface of the first device, e.g., the display and the keypad in the embodiment of FIG. 6.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the mobile device that moves over top the laptop has the ability to transfer media files from one device to another and can do this while moving over top of the laptop at a predetermined distance.
Dearman does not explicitly disclose:
a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold;
However, Nakano discloses:
a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold; (Fig. 1 with power supply apparatus 100 and electronic device 200 and [0019] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a near field communication system according to the first embodiment includes a power supply apparatus 100 and an electronic device 200, which are wireless communication devices. In a communication system according to the first embodiment, when a distance between the power supply apparatus 100 and the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range, the power supply apparatus 100 wirelessly supplies power to the electronic device 200.” and [0092] “When the power receiving antenna 201 has received the supplying power for wireless power supply within the predetermined period of time (S508, YES), the CPU 206 starts a wireless power receiving process in S509. In the wireless power receiving process, the power receiving antenna 201 receives the supplying power for wireless power supply from the power supply apparatus 100, the matching circuit 202 and the rectifying and smoothing circuit 203 convert the power into direct-current power, the power is supplied to the battery 212 via the regulator 205, and the battery 212 is charged.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the wireless power receiving process is started when the electronic device 200 is within a predetermined range of the power supply apparatus 100 (electronic device 200 shown to be placed on top of power supply apparatus 100 in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a first app other than a file transfer app when the relative location relationship is a first relative location relationship, wherein the first relative location relationship comprises that a Z-axis distance between the first device and the second device is less than or equal to a distance threshold as seen in Nakano's invention into Dearman's invention because these modifications allow simple substitution of application options for additional use cases for processes/applications to obtain predictable results besides just file transferring between devices.
Regarding claim 14, Dearman discloses the first device of claim 12, wherein the second device comprises a long side and a short side, wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from the short side, and wherein the target app comprises a projection app. (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 and [0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the presentation of a predefined display and execution of an application can occur based on the position of the second device relative to the first device so a projection app can be shown on the mobile device. Additionally, Figs. 3 and 4 show the mobile device on either side of the laptop’s “short” sides.
Regarding claim 16, it is a first device claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is a first device claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 6. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is a first device claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 8. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 21, it is a first device claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 10. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 23, it is a computer program product claim having the same limitations as cited in first device claim 12. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 25, it is a computer program product claim having the same limitations as cited in first device claim 19. Thus, claim 25 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Claims 4, 15, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearman (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0234925) in view of Nakano (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0127224) further in view of Yim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0110012) – hereinafter “Yim”.
Regarding claim 4, Dearman discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from a long side of the second device (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 and [0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution of an application can occur based on the position of the second device relative to the first device. Additionally, Figs. 6 and 7 show the mobile device moving across the laptop so an app could be launched when closer to the “long” sides of the laptop.)
Dearman does not explicitly disclose:
and wherein the target app comprises a keyboard app.
However, Yim discloses:
and wherein the target app comprises a keyboard app. ([0171-0172] “FIGS. 33 and 34 are views illustrating operations of a first terminal and a second terminal according to another embodiment of the present disclosure. The embodiment shown in FIGS. 33 and 34 is a case that the above-mentioned third user gesture is input. When a notification is received through the first terminal 100 worn on a user's wrist and a corresponding notification is a message reception through a messenger application, all or part of corresponding message content can be displayed on the screen of the first terminal 100. Then, when a user wants to reply to the received message, as applying or shaking the second terminal 300 in a state of gripping the second terminal 300, all or part of operations of an application being executed on the first terminal 100 can be transferred to the second terminal 300. Through such an application operation transfer, an operation of a messenger application performed by the first terminal 100 is transferred to the second terminal 300, and together with a corresponding messenger application executed on the second terminal 300, a virtual keyboard 631 for message reply can be displayed on the second terminal 300.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the virtual keyboard is opened on the second terminal 300 when shaking the second terminal 300 in a state of gripping the second terminal 300 and transfers the operation of a messenger application from first terminal 100.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the target app comprises a keyboard app as seen in Yim’s invention into Dearman's invention allow simple substitution of application options for additional use cases for processes/applications to obtain predictable results like a virtual keyboard app for inputting information on top of the physical keypad that is shown in the mobile device of Dearman’s invention.
Regarding claim 15, Dearman discloses the first device of claim 12, wherein the second device comprises a long side and a short side, wherein the first relative location relationship further comprises that the first device approaches the second device from the long side … (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 and [0040] “As shown in block 34 of FIG. 2, the apparatus 10 may also include means, such as the processor 12 or the like, for performing an operation based at least partially upon the position of the second device relative to the first device. Thus, the apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform a first operation in response to the first and second devices having a first relative position, a second operation in response to the first and second devices having a second relative position, etc. The apparatus, such as the processor, may be configured to perform various types of operations including execution of an application, presentation of a predefined display, performance a particular function, such as the answering of a voice call or the forwarding of a voice call to voicemail or to another party, the opening of a file, the playing of a media file or the like.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution of an application can occur based on the position of the second device relative to the first device. Additionally, Figs. 6 and 7 show the mobile device moving across the laptop so an app could be launched when closer to the “long” sides of the laptop.)
Dearman does not explicitly disclose:
and wherein the target app comprises a touchpad app.
However, Yim discloses:
and wherein the target app comprises a touchpad app. ([0128-0130] Next, FIGS. 15 and 16 are views illustrating operations of a first terminal and a second terminal according to another embodiment of the present disclosure. When the first terminal 100 and the second terminal 300 shown in FIGS. 15 and 16 are worn by a user as shown in FIG. 6, a first user gesture is performed. In this instance, the first terminal 100 detects only vibration by impact and the second terminal 300 detects vibration together with a swing movement (for example, a movement by a predetermined distance). The second terminal 300 becomes a main device and the first terminal 100 becomes a sub device. Accordingly, a control for transferring all or part of operations of an application executed on the main device to the sub device is performed. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, as a call application is executed on the second terminal 300 and a user inputs a phone number to a dial UI 306, if the first user gesture is received, a call menu UI 606 for allowing a user to select whether to attempt a call for the phone number input to the second terminal 300 can be displayed on the screen of the first terminal 100. The call menu UI 606 may include a menu for making a call and a menu for canceling a call.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the call application touchpad shown in Fig. 16 is opened on the second terminal 300 when shaking the second terminal 300 in a state of gripping the second terminal 300 and transfers the operation of a call application from first terminal 100.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the target app comprises a touchpad app as seen in Yim’s invention into Dearman's invention allow simple substitution of application options for additional use cases for processes/applications to obtain predictable results like a virtual touchpad app for inputting information on top of the physical keypad that is shown in the mobile device of Dearman’s invention.
Regarding claim 20, Dearman discloses the first device of claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to learn the correspondence based on the indication information.
However, Yim discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to learn the correspondence based on the indication information. ([0166-0167] “When a user shakes the first terminal 100 and the second terminal 300, all or part of operations of an application being executed in the second terminal 300 can be transferred to the first terminal 100. For example, a UI relating to a menu for manipulating operations of an application being executed on the second terminal 300 can be transferred to the first terminal 100 or all or part of images displayed on the second terminal 300 can be displayed on the first terminal 100. In addition, if the screen of the first terminal 100 is turned off, the screen of the first terminal 100 is turned on according to a user's function transfer gesture and the screen of the second terminal 300 becomes turned off according to user setting or the screen can be maintained in a turn on state in order for continuous operations of an application.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user can provide input of a setting to learn the proper way to handle turning on/off the screen of the first and second terminal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first device to learn the correspondence based on the indication information as seen in Yim’s invention into Dearman's invention because these modifications allow combining prior art elements to yield predictable results such that users have additional customization of system/application settings and implementations to run exactly as the user desires.
Regarding claim 26, it is a computer program product claim having the same limitations as cited in first device claim 20. Thus, claim 26 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 20 above.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearman (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0234925) in view of Nakano (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0127224) further in view of Dellinger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,425,284) – hereinafter “Dellinger”.
Regarding claim 7, Dearman discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
verifying security of the second device; and
further starting the target app based on the relative location relationship when security verification on the second device is successful.
However, Dellinger discloses:
verifying security of the second device; and (Fig. 6G and Col. 38, Lines 28-46 “FIG. 6G depicts another user interface for wirelessly establishing a relationship between device 600 and peripheral display unit 610, namely Bluetooth credentials prompt 642. Bluetooth credentials prompt 642 is an interface that prompts the user to enter Bluetooth credentials, such as a numerical code. These credentials can optionally be provided, for example, on the display of the peripheral display unit 610. The credentials are displayed on the peripheral display unit 610 and entered on the device 600 with which a relationship is being established. This process is designed to enhance security by ensuring that the user has control over both the device 600 and the peripheral display unit 610. In some embodiments, Bluetooth credentials prompt 642 is displayed only as a part of the wireless setup process, and not as a part of the wired setup process, because the presence of a wired physical connection between the device 600 and the peripheral display unit 610 during wired setup adequately ensures that the user is legitimately in control of both device 600 and peripheral display unit 610.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Bluetooth credentials prompt ensures that the user has control over both the device 600 and the peripheral display unit 610.
further starting the target app based on the relative location relationship when security verification on the second device is successful. (Col. 48, Lines 20-32 “At block 734, optionally, the device detects, via one or more of the first and second data connections, that the peripheral display unit is available for the establishment of a relationship. In some embodiments, the device uses one or more wireless data connections to search for peripheral devices in proximity that are available for connection. In some embodiments, the device exchanges data with detected peripherals to determine what kind of peripheral it is, whether it is capable of connecting with the device, the name of the peripheral, and information about the security of a connection formed with the device (such as whether connecting to the device would require a password or other authentication or credentials).” and Fig. 6G and Col. 38, Lines 28-46 “FIG. 6G depicts another user interface for wirelessly establishing a relationship between device 600 and peripheral display unit 610, namely Bluetooth credentials prompt 642. Bluetooth credentials prompt 642 is an interface that prompts the user to enter Bluetooth credentials, such as a numerical code. These credentials can optionally be provided, for example, on the display of the peripheral display unit 610. The credentials are displayed on the peripheral display unit 610 and entered on the device 600 with which a relationship is being established. This process is designed to enhance security by ensuring that the user has control over both the device 600 and the peripheral display unit 610. In some embodiments, Bluetooth credentials prompt 642 is displayed only as a part of the wireless setup process, and not as a part of the wired setup process, because the presence of a wired physical connection between the device 600 and the peripheral display unit 610 during wired setup adequately ensures that the user is legitimately in control of both device 600 and peripheral display unit 610.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the proximity of the device 600 and peripheral display unit 610 and the security verification via Bluetooth credentials prompt allow the CarPlay app to start.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add verifying security of the second device and further starting the target app based on the relative location relationship when security verification on the second device is successful as seen in Dellinger’s invention into Dearman's invention because these modifications allow combining prior art elements to yield predictable results such that security checks to ensure usage of device(s) are allowed as there is only the assumption that these devices are yours and freely usable in Dearman’s invention.
Regarding claim 18, it is a first device claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 7. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This prior art includes Li et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0091779), Han (U.S. Patent No. 10,037,183), Jiang (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0185823), and Stekkelpak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0188989) found during PE2E Search which all have important concepts of the claimed invention such as devices being near each other, approaching each other, or being sat perpendicular to each other and performing operations or file transfers based on such positioning.
Additionally, prior art including Ledvina et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0106877), Chang-Ryong Heo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0220963), CN 104516697A, CN 110248346A, CN 105487804A, CN 103138808A are available in the IDS and have similar limitations as the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights