FINAL REJECTION, SECOND DETAILED ACTION
Status of Prosecution
The present application 18/122,684, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The application was filed in the Office on March 16, 2023.
The Office mailed a non-final rejection, first detailed action on Oct. 1, 2025.
Applicant filed amended claims with accompanying remarks and arguments on Dec. 23, 2025.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-16 and 19-22 are pending and are all rejected in this rejection. Claims 1, 15 and 16 are independent claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakes et al. (“Jakes”), United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0300079, published on Sept. 22, 2022 in view of Chung et al. (“Chung”), United States Patent 11,410,541 B1, published on Aug. 9, 2022 in view of Dogrusoz et al. (“Dogrusoz”), United States Patent Application Publication 2023/007616, published on Mar. 9, 2023 and in further view of Singh, United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0368785, published on Nov. 16, 2023.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Jakes in view of Chung in view of Dogrusoz in view of Singh, United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0368785, published on Nov. 16, 2023 in further view of Wang et al. (“Wang”), United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0408676, published on Dec. 21, 2023.
Response to Remarks and Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for the remarks and arguments.
After considering the amendments and arguments, Examiner has newly-rejected the remaining claims as noted below. Specifically, Examiner has applied Singh, United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0368785, published on Nov. 16, 2023 to teach the new element in representative claim 1, which deals with the removal of inapplicable devices after a voice command.
The claims stand rejected.
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 of this title, 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.
A.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakes et al. (“Jakes”), United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0300079, published on Sept. 22, 2022 in view of Chung et al. (“Chung”), United States Patent 11,410,541 B1, published on Aug. 9, 2022 in view of Dogrusoz et al. (“Dogrusoz”), United States Patent Application Publication 2023/007616, published on Mar. 9, 2023 and in further view of Singh, United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0368785, published on Nov. 16, 2023.
As to Claim 1, Jakes teaches: A user device comprising:
ultra-wideband (UWB) antennas (Jakes: par. 0048, UWB transceiver [191]; and
a signal processing unit connected to the UWB antennas and that includes processing circuitry and memory coupled to the processing circuitry (Jakes: pars. 0050-51, Fig. 1, the system includes the UWB and the processor and other circuitry), wherein the signal processing unit is configured to:
trigger a point-command operation in response to an input to the user device from a user of the user device (Jakes: par. 0055, the user is able to point the smartphone [302] (i.e. user device));
pair with a targeted device after the point-command operation is triggered (Jakes: par. 0055, the smartphone and the smart lamp [304] (i.e. targeted device) are paired based on the UWB signal exchange), wherein pairing with the targeted device involves determining that the user device is pointed at the targeted device based on an angle-of- arrival (AoA) of UWB pings that are received from the targeted device on the UWB antennas of the user device (Jakes: par. 0063, Fig. 4, AoA algorithms or otherwise may be used to determine the location identification for pairing at step [406]);
interpret a user generated point-command that is received at the user device from the user to produce a machine-readable point-command (Jakes: par. 0065, Fig. 4, at [410], a command is received to control the second device from the first device), wherein the user generated point-command is interpreted at least in part based on the pairing with the targeted device (Jakes: par. 0065, the command may be established based on the pointing and the pairing); and
PNG
media_image1.png
608
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmit the machine-readable point-command from the user device to the targeted device via a wireless signal (Jakes: pars. 0069-70, the command is transmitted, via different ways such as a Wi-Fi network, Bluetooth, the Internet (i.e. a wireless signal)).
Jakes may not explicitly teach: wherein the user generated point-command is received at a microphone of the user device as a spoken command from the user;
wherein the spoken command is received at the microphone of the user device while the user device is pointed at the targeted device;
Jakes does however teach the ability to receive voice commands (Jakes: par. 0051, a microphone may receive audio input (i.e. a spoken command from the user)).
Chung teaches in general concepts related to gesture based-selection of devices using a device (Chung: Abstract). Specifically, Chung teaches that the user is able to send voice data while gesturing toward a device (Chung: col. 2, line 18 to 34, the voice command in conjunction with the gesture may be used to direct the command as intended by the user). The spoken command may be received at the microphone while the user device is pointed at the target device (Chung: col. 2, line 18 to 34, the voice command in conjunction with the gesture may be used to direct the command as intended by the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Jakes disclosures and teachings by incorporating voice commands as taught by Chung. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for disambiguated commands (Chung: col. 2, lines 46 to 49).
Jakes and Chung may not explicitly teach:
wherein pairing with the targeted device involves selecting the targeted device from a plurality of UWB-enabled devices that are transmitting UWB pings and that are within a pointing zone of the user device.
wherein pairing with the targeted device involves toggling a user interface of the user device through the plurality of UWB-enabled devices until the targeted device is selected; and
Dogrusoz teaches in general concepts related to gesture-control inputs to an electronic device for controlling one or more other devices (Dogrusoz: Abstract). Specifically, Dogrusoz teaches that several devices in an area may be selected from via the pointing/gesture control (Dogrusoz: Fig. 8, par. 0064). Toggling is permitted to select a device (Dorusoz: par. 0068, the user is able to toggle between the different devices as on the device; par. 0082, the selection of a device may be indicated via the touchscreen of the control device).
PNG
media_image2.png
617
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Jakes-Chung disclosures and teachings by allowing for the selection feature as taught by Dogrusoz. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a better user experience with multiple devices to control.
Jakes, Chung and Dorusoz may not explicitly teach: wherein a UWB-enabled device of the plurality of UWB-enabled devices that are transmitting UWB pings and that are within a pointing zone of the user device is removed from the user interface in response to the spoken command.
Singh teaches in general concepts related to voice commands to cause devices to perform actions (Singh: Abstract). Specifically, Singh teaches that knowledge graphs of devices may be used in processing voice commands (Singh: pra. 0066, Fig. 7). For a predicted voice command, inapplicable devices may be removed from the knowledge graph (Singh: par. 0066, a command to increase brightness would cause the knowledge graph to be updated with the removal of nodes corresponding to devices without devices). While the knowledge graph is not taught to be displayed explicitly by Singh, the knowledge graph could be used to generate such lists to be displayed in user interfaces, Examiner asserts.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Jakes-Chung-Dogrusoz disclosures and teachings by incorporating the display interface update with Singh’s knowledge graphs. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for an efficient display and processing of voice commands (Singh: par. 0003, costs of voice commands).
As to Claim 4, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jakes further teaches: wherein pairing with the targeted device involves triggering the targeted device to transmit the UWB pings (Jakes: par. 0062, in response to the first UWB signal, a second UWB signal from the second device (i.e. targeted device) is received).
As to Claim 5, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Jakes further teaches: wherein pairing with the targeted device involves determining a type of the targeted device based on a wireless communication from the targeted device (Jakes: par. 0062, information including the type of the device may be sent back).
As to Claim 8, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Dogrusoz further teaches: wherein pairing with the targeted device involves toggling through visual indicators of the plurality of UWB-enabled devices until the targeted device is selected by the user via an input to the user device while a visual indicator is output from the user device (Dogrusoz: par. 0068, the user is able to toggle between the different devices as on the device via the visual indicators for the different devices; par. 0082, the selection of a device may be indicated via the touchscreen of the control device).
As to Claim 12, Jakes teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Jakes further teaches: further including the user device guiding the user toward the targeted device (Jakes: Figs. 5-6)
PNG
media_image3.png
999
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 13, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Jakes may not explicitly teach: wherein the user device guides the user to the targeted device using AoA information and haptic feedback (Jakes: par. .
Dogrusoz teaches in general concepts related to gesture-control inputs to an electronic device for controlling one or more other devices (Dogrusoz: Abstract). Specifically, Dogrusoz teaches that several devices in an area may be selected from via the pointing/gesture control (Dogrusoz: Fig. 8, par. 0064). Haptic feedback may be given (Dogrusoz: par. 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Jakes disclosures and teachings by allowing for the haptic feedback feature as taught by Dogrusoz. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a better user experience for those users responding better to tactile feedback.
As to Claim 14, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Jakes further teaches: wherein the user device is a smartwatch (Jakes: par. 0054, the device may be smart watch).
Jakes may not explicitly teach: and a pointing zone of the smartwatch is in line with a point finger of a hand of the user, wherein the smartwatch is worn on the same wrist as the hand.
Dogrusoz teaches in general concepts related to gesture-control inputs to an electronic device for controlling one or more other devices (Dogrusoz: Abstract). Specifically, Dogrusoz teaches that several devices in an area may be selected from via the pointing/gesture control where the device is a smartwatch worn on a hand (Dogrusoz: Fig. 8, par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Jakes disclosures and teachings by allowing for the device to be a smartwatch worn on a hnad as taught by Dogrusoz. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success toallow for the ease of using a wearable device on a user’s hand.
As to Claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As to Claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As to Claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
As to Claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
B.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Jakes et al. (“Jakes”), United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0300079, published on Sept. 22, 2022 in view of Chung et al. (“Chung”), United States Patent 11,410,541 B1, published on Aug. 9, 2022 in view of Dogrusoz et al. (“Dogrusoz”), United States Patent Application Publication 2023/007616, published on Mar. 9, 2023 and in further view of Singh, United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0368785, published on Nov. 16, 2023 in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”), United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0408676, published on Dec. 21, 2023.
As to Claim 9, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz and Singh may not explicitly teach: wherein pairing with the targeted device involves determining a device type of the targeted device; and
interpreting the spoken command involves selecting a device-specific command interpretation library from a set of device-specific in response to the device type of the targeted device.
Wang teaches in general concepts related to gesture detection that incorporate UWB transceivers via identified gestures (Wang: Abstract). Specifically, Wang teaches certain gestures are only associated with certain types of devices and would be disambiguated b the controller which Examiner asserts would be a gesture dictionary for instance, a type of interpretation library (Wang: pars. 0085-86, example of televisions and relevant commands for a television).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Jakes disclosures and teachings by allowing the specific disambiguation of commands with certain device types as taught by Wang. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a better user experience with multiple devices to control.
As to Claim 10, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz, Singh and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Jake further teaches: wherein the device type of the targeted device is determined based on a non-UWB wireless communication from the targeted device (Jakes: pars. 0069-70, the command is transmitted, via different ways such as a Wi-Fi network, Bluetooth, the Internet (i.e. a wireless signal)).
As to Claim 11, Jakes, Chung, Dogrusoz, Singh and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Wang further teaches: wherein the command interpretation library is selected from a library of machine-learning models that are trained to predict point-commands from the user generated point-commands that are received at the user device (Wang: par. 0031, machine learning models may be used to train).
As to Claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
As to Claim 21, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9.
As to Claim 22, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9.
Conclusion
Prior art made of the record:
Shin et al., US PG Pub 2022/0244367(Aug. 4, 2022) (describing UWB devices for measurements per pair).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Eastern.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. 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.
/JAMES T TSAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights