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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50-56 and 66 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Ehrman is not analogous art because it is not from the same field of endeavor of the recited claims and is not reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved by applicant because of it being in a “pet/geofence boundary-recording system”.
After careful consideration, the examiner disagrees as first it would not be logical to think that those designing display interfaces such as claimed for any particular application would limit themselves to the particular field of the application. Second, the claims are broader in scope than the disclosure and would not limit anyone to a particular field.
Applicant’s specification in [0002] declares that the disclosure relates to the communication field and for quickly displaying a control window for an electronic device and a mobile device (which in no way differentiates from a pet/geofence boundary recording system). Further, as provided by Wang, it is useful to know the locations when activating a window but only lacks the details provided by Ehrman and thereby directing one to various fields relating to locating an object.
Further, the claims breadth would literally read on a pet/geofence boundary recording system thus destroying any argument.
Applicant argues that Rechenberger is not analogous and its use is hindsight.
First, the claims are so broad that they encompass the use of SLAM. Second, one interested in localization of mobile objects is open to a diverse field and applications and to ignore such would not be logical. That is, those using UWB devices need to consider how such devices have been used opening up discovery of fields of use such as SLAM.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues Pan is not analogous art because the application is slightly different however this is not persuasive as the details of the application are not claimed. Pan is clearly pertinent to anyone involved with windows.
Applicant argues Sheynblat addresses a materially different field and problem from claim 59 and thus isn’t pertinent yet it clearly provides for the claimed limitations in use in mobile phones/objects as claimed. With the ubiquity of mobile phones it is impossible to ignore different uses or consider different fields as materially different. Further, a mobile phone has many uses, adding a feature as claimed provides for utility in multiple fields.
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, 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.
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 Application/Control Number: 18/262,888 Page 9 Art Unit: 2649
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) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Siravuri (2017/0277407).
As to claim 58, (New) the combination of Wang, Ehrman, and Rechenberger discloses The mobile device of claim 57, is silent to yet in an analogous art Siravuri discloses 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. See [0030]. 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 and thereby enabling remote access.
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].
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.
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
Prosecution Insights