DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 46-59 & 63-65) in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged.
The requirement is made FINAL.
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 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI of the claim includes a signal per se.
Claim 65 recites a “computer program product” which is not defined in the specification as being limited to statutory embodiments and thus includes a transitory signal. The examiner suggests limiting to “non-transitory” embodiments.
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.
Claim 59 is 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 59 recites the limitation “wherein the direction sensor is a nine-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a magnetic sensor;” but then recites “or the IMU is a six-axis IMU comprising an accelerometer sensor and a gyroscope sensor”. Thereby rendering the claim indefinite as it is not clear nor understandable how the nine-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) could instead be a six-axis IMU. The examiner suggests reciting the IMU and then providing for the alternatives, such as presented below.
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.
Claim(s) 46, 48, 57, 58, 63, and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, (12542051) hereinafter “Wang”, Ehrman et al. (2022/0279760) hereinafter “Ehrman”, and Rechenberger (2022/0201427).
As to claim 46, (New) Wang discloses A mobile device (102) operable to communicate wirelessly with an annotation device and a to-be-annotated electronic device, the mobile device comprising:
at least one processor (112); a memory (110) coupled to the at least one processor;
a direction sensor (150/152) see col 6 lines 36-60; and
a computer program (application) stored in the memory and, when the computer program is executed by the processor, causes the mobile device to:
display a first control window for the electronic device (col 20 lines 28-33) after the mobile device is moved to another location and points (see col 19 line 61 – col 20 line 27 to the electronic device.
Wang further discloses wherein the electronic device locations were known (for example col 20 lines 23-27) however fails to explicitly teach to receive a first input after the mobile device moves to a location of the electronic device; and record a location of the mobile device in response to the first input, wherein the location of the mobile device coincides with the location of the electronic device. In an analogous art Ehrman discloses [0059] wherein it was known to receive a first input (configured to record) after the mobile device moves to a location of the electronic device; and record a location of the mobile device in response to the first input, wherein the location of the mobile device coincides with the location of the electronic device (The user device 110 can be configured to “record” one or more geo-fences as a user physically travels a desired boundary. For example, the user device 110 can be configured to record, via GLS 250, location data indicative of a geographic location of the user device 110 as a user carries the user device 110 along a desired boundary). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cause the mobile device to receive a first input after the mobile device moves to a location of the electronic device; and record a location of the mobile device in response to the first input, wherein the location of the mobile device coincides with the location of the electronic device as taught by Ehrman for the purpose of reliably marking the location.
Wang and/or the combination of Wang and Ehrman fail to explicitly recite wherein the mobile device comprises an ultra-wideband UWB tag yet in an analogous art Rechenberger discloses a mobile device (UE) comprises an ultra-wideband UWB tag (see [0017]: “… the at least one UE and the at least one ID tag each comprise an Ultra Wide Band (UWB transceiver…” to aid in localizing an object [0019]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cause the mobile device to include a UWB tag to aid in positioning, as taught by Rechenberger.
As to claim 48, (New) the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 46, Wand discloses wherein execution of the computer program by the processor causes the electronic device to:
communicate wirelessly with the annotation device (controllable device) and the electronic device by using a routing (see col 6 lines 1-10: communication hub 104) device; and
display a second control window for the annotation device after the mobile device points to the annotation device (see col 20 line 57 – col 21 line 4).
As to claim 57, (New) the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 46, Wang discloses wherein an identifier (name) of the electronic (controllable) device is selected (generated) based on the first input (identified and configured) and the identifier of the electronic device corresponds to a parameter (type of controllable device) of the electronic device. See col 18 line 42 – col 19 line 18.
As to claim 58, (New) the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 57, is silent to yet the examiner takes official notice that before the effective filing date it was well known for a device parameter to comprise one or more of a media access control (MAC) address, an internet protocol (IP) address, a sequence number (SN), or a device identifier of the electronic device. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to parameter to comprise one or more of a media access control (MAC) address, an internet protocol (IP) address, a sequence number (SN), or a device identifier of the electronic device for the purpose of using more specific information to identify the device.
Claim 63 recites the method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 46 and is treated as above.
Claim 65 recites the CRM / program corresponding to the apparatus of claim 47 and is treated as above.
Claim(s) 47, 49, and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Pan (2010/0083304).
As to claim 47, (New) the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 46, Wang further discloses wherein execution of the computer program by the processor causes the mobile device to:
display the first control window (310) on the mobile device [[for a preset duration]], wherein the first control window is configured to receive input for controlling the electronic device (see col 20 lines 28-56), is silent to yet in an analogous art Pan discloses displaying a popup (smaller window) window for a preset duration and foregoing display of the first control window when (pertinent) input for controlling the electronic device has not been received within the preset duration. See [0045]: “… If the user is not interested in the advertisement, the smaller display window containing the advertisement is removed in step 516 after a predetermined period of time”. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the control window for a preset duration and foregoing display of the first control window when (pertinent) input for controlling the electronic device has not been received within the preset duration for the purpose of saving resources (no need to display window when user has no or loses interest) as taught by Pan.
As to claim 49, (New) the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 48, Wang further discloses wherein execution of the computer program by the processor causes the mobile device to:
display the second control window (310) on the mobile device [[for a preset duration]], wherein the second control window is configured to receive input for controlling the electronic device (see col 20 lines 28-56), is silent to yet in an analogous art Pan discloses displaying a popup (smaller window) window for a preset duration and foregoing display of the second control window when (pertinent) input for controlling the electronic device has not been received within the preset duration. See [0045]: “… If the user is not interested in the advertisement, the smaller display window containing the advertisement is removed in step 516 after a predetermined period of time”. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the second control window for a preset duration and foregoing display of the second control window when (pertinent) input for controlling the electronic device has not been received within the preset duration for the purpose of saving resources (no need to display window when user has no or loses interest) as taught by Pan.
Claim 64 recites the method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 47 and is treated as above.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Sheynblat et al. (2010/0248662) hereinafter “Sheynblat”.
The combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 46, is silent to yet in an analogous art Sheynblat discloses wherein the direction sensor is one of a nine-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a magnetic sensor; or a six-axis IMU comprising an accelerometer sensor and a gyroscope sensor. See [0026] (provides for the MS to be a mobile device and [0049] (provides for 6-axis IMU including accelerometer and gyroscope). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the direction sensor is one of a nine-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a magnetic sensor or a six-axis IMU comprising an accelerometer sensor and a gyroscope sensor as taught by Sheynblat for the purpose of providing inputs to save power [0047].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50-56 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oishi (2012/0077515) provides for selective communication based on pointing the phone. See [0033].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649