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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 5-7, 9, 11,13, 14, 16, 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US 2022/0405317) in view of Lee (US 2015/0194050) and Clay (US 2018/0027203).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16 and 24 Marks teaches An electronic device for controlling one or more devices, the electronic device comprising: a communication module configured to communicate with the one or more devices (remote control device 300); a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (memory 330); and at least one processor (processor 342), wherein the at least one processor when executing the instructions by accessing the memory is configured to: determine a target device of which an envelope (overlap area from two different location) is to be registered among the one or more devices, determine a first control area for the target device based on (i) first coordinates of a location of the electronic device in a preset coordinate system, (11) a first direction from the first coordinates to the target device, and (iii) a field of view (FoV) for the target device (coordinates and field of view can be determined when a spatially-aware device map of plurality of controllable devices is created by the system Fig. 1), determine a second control area for the target device based on (1) second coordinates of the location of the electronic device in the preset coordinate system, (11) a second direction from the second coordinates to the target device, and (111) the FoV for the target device (repeated steps from a different location), and register an overlap area as the envelope for the target device, the overlap area being where the first control area and the second control area overlap ([0059] teaches the UWB (ultra-wideband) data and inertial data are used to generate a controllable device map of a plurality of device. Where determining target device can include capturing the remote control device location from two or more different perspectives relative to a controllable device. The system can determine UWB data when the remote control device is positioned at two or more locations relative to the target controllable device. The device orientation can be determined at each location. For example, the device can draw or otherwise determine a line at each perspective using the remote control device's location and orientation. An intersection of the lines passing from the control device to the target controllable device at each location can be determined as the targeted controllable device location.) wherein at least on processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: determine a control target device among the one or mor devices based on user input for controlling a device (Fig. 9 steps 904-926), but Marks fails to teach adjust a FoV of the remote control device for the control target device based on pre-registered envelopes respectively for the control target device and another device among the one or more devices.
However in the field of programming a remote control device and controlling a target device, Lee teaches a method that adjust a FoV of the remote control device for the control target device based on overlapping registered data respectively for the control target device and another device among the one or more devices (Fig. 9 [0118-0122], teach a plurality of devices to be recognized by a remote control 100, in [0119] teaches the remote control can receive response signals from the devices and recognize if two are selected. [0120-0122] teach the remote may change a direction of the IR signal angle to request a response from a single device and can continue to change the direction right or left until a response from a single device is received.).
Although Lee does not teach adjusting the FoV of the remote control using a pre-registered envelope, he does teach the method of adjusting the FoV based on recognizing the registered data of the target devices.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the system as taught by Marks with the method as taught by Lee. This combination would improve user control or multiple devices by effectively selecting the desired device as taught by Lee. Although the combination teaches the limitations as discussed above, they fail to teach determining a control target device based on pre-registered envelopes respectively for the control target device and another device among the one or more devices.
However in the field of determining a control target device, Clay teaches determining a control target device based on pre-registered envelopes respectively for the control target device and another device among the one or more devices ([0052] teaches appliances can identify themselves and their RC command code to the RC. Therefore it is obvious the processer of the RC will recognize if the code the code of the appliance is registered.) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the system as taught by Marks with the method as taught by Lee and the identification method as taught by Clay. This combination would improve user control or multiple devices by effectively selecting the desired device as taught by Lee
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Marks teaches wherein the at least one processor when executing the instructions is further configured to, when a user input for controlling a device is received ([0005]), determine a control target device among the one or more devices ([0059]), and control the control target device based on the user input for controlling the device([0079][0085-0087).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 20, Marks teaches s wherein the target device is determined by user input([0005][0059][0079]).
Regarding claims 6, Marks teaches wherein the preset coordinate system is set by the electronic device and a reference electronic device configured to perform ultra-wideband (UWB) communication with the electronic device ([0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Marks teaches wherein the first control area, the second control area, and the overlap area between the first control area and the second control area are calculated by the reference electronic device ([0059] An intersection of the lines passing from the control device to the target controllable device at each location can be determined as the targeted controllable device location.[0060] teaches multiple UWB device can be used to triangulate the target device) .
Regarding claim 14, Marks teaches wherein the preset coordinate system is set by the electronic device and a reference electronic device configured to perform ultra-wideband (UWB) communication with the electronic device ([0059]) wherein the first control area, the second control area, and the overlap area between the first control area and the second control area are calculated by the reference electronic device ([0059] An intersection of the lines passing from the control device to the target controllable device at each location can be determined as the targeted controllable device location.[0060] teaches multiple UWB device can be used to triangulate the target device).
Regarding claims 26-27, Marks teaches wherein the remote control device communicates with the one or more devices based on at least one of Infrared (IR) or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) ([0129]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17, Marks teaches the limitation of claims 1, 9, and 16 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach determine a third control area for the target device based on (1) third coordinates of the location of the electronic device in the preset coordinate system, (ii) a third direction from the third coordinates to the target device, and (iii) the FoV for the target device, and update the envelope for the target device based on the third control area and the overlap area.
However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include a third direction derived form a third set of coordinates to the target device since the applicant has not disclosed that third direction solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the first and second direction of the coordinate system to determine the overlap of the target device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, 21-22,and 25 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
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 ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621