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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 12 under U.S.C. 112(b), applicant states that the claim has been amended so as to overcome the rejection. The examiner disagrees as while the preamble has been amended the substance of the claim which renders it indefinite remains. The claim still recites “initiating, using the wireless transceiver, the pairing mode with the user-selected transmitter” which is in contradiction with the independent claim from which the claim depends- the independent claim 8 recites that when pairing mode is initiated the system will “select one of the first or second transmitters for pairing with the apparatus based on a comparison of the first and second position coordinates; and initiate pairing with the selected transmitter” This is incompatible with the dependent claim instead disclosing pairing with a user selected transmitter, as the independent claim does not leave open the possibility of an alternate pairing method not does the dependent claim state that this way of pairing replaces that of the independent claim. The claims directly contradict and therefore remain indefinite.
Regarding the rejections under U.S.C 102 and 103, applicant states that the claims have been amended to overcome the art, specifically the Dods reference, by now claiming that the position coordinates are 3D coordinates in 3D space. To support, the applicant points to paragraph [0073] which states that the relative location “can be” determined using only the Hx and Hy component of the magnetic field planar to the earth and argues that Dods is therefore determining only two-dimensional coordinates from two components of the magnetic fields rather than three dimensions from 3 components. Firstly, the claims as written do not make any claim of the components of the magnetic field or their use in deriving coordinates- while the claims are examiner in view of the specification the actual claim is what is examined and the lack of something which is not claimed does not have bearing on whether the art reads on the claim. Secondly and more pertinently, this assertion is incorrect in view of paragraph [0053] which states “The relative location of the peripheral device 600 magnet may be determined, for example, as a coordinate value in two dimensional (e.g., x and y) or three dimensional (e.g., x, y and z) coordinate space”. This exact paragraph including this is cited in the previous office action, and no argument is made to address the fact that the Dods reference discloses determine 3D position coordinates in the 3D space. A coordinate value in 3D coordinate space reads on “the first position coordinates are 3D coordinates in the 3D space” and other claims of 3D coordinates in 3D space, and the amendment is read on by the already-cited passages. For this reason, the examiner maintains the rejection as applied in the previous action was proper, and the same prior art applies to the amended claims as well as rejection for indefiniteness.
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 12 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. The claim recites a user selecting a transmitter to pair with, and the pairing subsequently taking place. However, the claim depends from independent claims in which pairing is initiated based on the system determining a transmitter for pairing based on . Therefore, a dependent claim to recite a user selecting the transmitter for pairing contradicts the independent claims in which a user has no input because a processor selects the transmitter for pairing. The amendment to the claim preamble again does not remedy this issue as the claim is still unclear as to how the claim of user selection of the transmitter for pairing can co-exist with the claim of selecting by the processor based on the comparison, as they contradict each other based on the limitations of the claims..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dods (US 20120284427), herein after referred to as Dods.
Regarding Claim 8, Dods discloses:
one or more processors configured to: initiate a pairing mode; (see at least [0067] “When input to connect to a peripheral device 600, or input to change a peripheral device 600 is received, the portable electronic device 100 actively scans for Bluetooth-enabled peripheral devices 600 ”)
determine first position coordinates of the device relative to the first transmitter location in the 3D space based at least in part on a sensed first AC magnetic field, wherein the first position coordinates are 3D coordinates in the 3D space; (see at least [0053] “The relative location of the peripheral device 600 magnet may be determined, for example, as a coordinate value in two dimensional (e.g., x and y) or three dimensional (e.g., x, y and z) coordinate space using the relationship between the magnetic flux density and relative location.”)
determine second position coordinates of the device relative to the second transmitter location in the 3D space based at least in part on the sensed second AC magnetic field, wherein the second position coordinates are 3D coordinates in the 3D space; (see at least [0015] “determining a relative location of at least two available peripheral devices in accordance with magnetic fields uniquely associated with the at least two available peripheral devices" [0053] " The relative location of the peripheral device 600 magnet may be determined, for example, as a coordinate value in two dimensional (e.g., x and y) or three dimensional (e.g., x, y and z) coordinate space using the relationship between the magnetic flux density and relative location.”)
select one of the first or second transmitters for pairing with the device based on a comparison of the first and second position coordinates; (see at least [0077] “The processor 102 selects the available peripheral device 606 by comparing the directional input with the relative locations of the available peripheral devices 600, determining which of the available peripheral devices 606 has a relative location (or heading) nearest to a direction of the directional input, and selecting the available peripheral device 606 having a relative location (or heading) nearest to the direction of the directional input.”)
and initiate pairing with the selected transmitter. (see at least [0079] “ After an available peripheral device 606 is selected in accordance with selection input, the processor 102 connects to the selected peripheral device 606 using the short-range wireless communication path 706”)
Regarding Claim 9, Dods discloses:
wherein upon successful pairing with the selected transmitter, the apparatus is configured into an application mode, the application mode causing the magnetic field sensor to sense a third magnetic field. (see at least [0046] “The magnetic field measured by the magnetic sensor 302 may be the Earth's magnetic field, a magnetic field generated by one or more magnets in a peripheral device 600 (also known as an accessory device and described in more detail below), or a combination thereof. [0074] Various applications 148, such as a compass application (not shown), may utilize the readings in the data store”)
Regarding Claim 10, Dods discloses:
wherein the magnetic field sensor is a magnetometer (see at least [0046] “the magnetic sensor 302 is a magnetometer”)
and the third magnetic field is a geomagnetic field. (see at least [0046] “The magnetic field measured by the magnetic sensor 302 may be the Earth's magnetic field,”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dods (US 20120284427), herein after referred to as Dods, in view of Qi (CN 108076511), herein after referred to as Qi.
Regarding Claim 1, Dods discloses:
configuring a device operating in a three-dimensional (3D) space into a pairing mode, the pairing mode causing:; (see at least [0067] “When input to connect to a peripheral device 600, or input to change a peripheral device 600 is received, the portable electronic device 100 actively scans for Bluetooth-enabled peripheral devices 600 ”)
a magnetic field sensor in the device to sense a first alternating current (AC) magnetic field emitted by a first transmitter located in the 3D space (see at least [0046] “the magnetic sensor 302 is a magnetometer which senses and measures the strength and/or direction of the magnetic field within the vicinity of the portable electronic device 100. The magnetic field measured by the magnetic sensor 302 may be ... a magnetic field generated by one or more magnets in a peripheral device 600”)
the one or more processors of the device to determine first position coordinates of the device relative to the first transmitter location in the 3D space based at least in part on the sensed first AC magnetic field, wherein the first position coordinates are 3D coordinates in the 3D space; (see at least [0053] “The relative location of the peripheral device 600 magnet may be determined, for example, as a coordinate value in two dimensional (e.g., x and y) or three dimensional (e.g., x, y and z) coordinate space using the relationship between the magnetic flux density and relative location.”)
the one or more processors of the device to determine second position coordinates of the device relative to the second transmitter location in the 3D space based at least in part on the sensed second AC magnetic field, wherein the second position coordinates are 3D coordinates in the 3D space; (see at least [0015] “determining a relative location of at least two available peripheral devices in accordance with magnetic fields uniquely associated with the at least two available peripheral devices" [0053] " The relative location of the peripheral device 600 magnet may be determined, for example, as a coordinate value in two dimensional (e.g., x and y) or three dimensional (e.g., x, y and z) coordinate space using the relationship between the magnetic flux density and relative location.”)
the one or more processors to select one of the first or second transmitters for pairing with the device based on a comparison of the first and second position coordinates; (see at least [0077] “The processor 102 selects the available peripheral device 606 by comparing the directional input with the relative locations of the available peripheral devices 600, determining which of the available peripheral devices 606 has a relative location (or heading) nearest to a direction of the directional input, and selecting the available peripheral device 606 having a relative location (or heading) nearest to the direction of the directional input.”)
and the one or more processors to initiate pairing with the selected transmitter. (see at least [0079] “ After an available peripheral device 606 is selected in accordance with selection input, the processor 102 connects to the selected peripheral device 606 using the short-range wireless communication path 706”)
Dods does not explicitly disclose:
at a first frequency,
In the same field of endeavor, Qi discloses:
at a first frequency, (see at least [0011] “two low-frequency AC magnetic field signal generating devices to generate low-frequency AC magnetic field signals of different frequencies”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the fields of mobile devices and magnetic-field-based peripherals. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to sense the magnetic field at a first frequency, as taught by Qi to differentiate between the emitters [0022].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Dods further discloses:
wherein upon successful pairing with the selected transmitter, the apparatus is configured into an application mode, the application mode causing the magnetic field sensor to sense a third magnetic field. (see at least [0046] “The magnetic field measured by the magnetic sensor 302 may be the Earth's magnetic field, a magnetic field generated by one or more magnets in a peripheral device 600 (also known as an accessory device and described in more detail below), or a combination thereof. [0074] Various applications 148, such as a compass application (not shown), may utilize the readings in the data store”)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 2, and Dods further discloses:
wherein the magnetic field sensor is a magnetometer (see at least [0046] “the magnetic sensor 302 is a magnetometer”)
and the third magnetic field is a geomagnetic field. (see at least [0046] “The magnetic field measured by the magnetic sensor 302 may be the Earth's magnetic field,”)
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dods (US 20120284427), herein after referred to as Dods, in view of Qi (CN 108076511), herein after referred to as Qi, Dooley (US 20170203446), herein after referred to as Dooley, and Ruiz (US 20160345137), herein after referred to as Ruiz.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Dods does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining, using the wireless transceiver, a floor plan of the 3D space;
determining, using a location processor, a current location of the device in the 3D space;
generating, using the one or more processors, a floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the device in the floor plan;
and presenting, using the one or more processors, the floor plan on a display of the device.
In the same field of endeavor, Dooley discloses:
and presenting, using the one or more processors, the floor plan on the display of the display. (see at least [0178] “a display 1004 of a user terminal 1002 presents a floorplan view”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to present a floorplan on the display, as taught by Dooley to allow a user to control and see data from a device in the building [0261].
In the same field of endeavor, Ruiz discloses:
obtaining, using the wireless transceiver, a floor plan of the 3D space; (see at least [0025] “"network 101 may also include any number of computing devices (e.g., computer, servers, routers, network switches, etc.) that are configured to receive and/or transmit data within the network 101." [0066] "the navigation module 414 may access data corresponding to a floor-plan or layout of a building environment (or portions thereof) from memory 108 or another suitable source.”)
determining, using a location processor, a current location of the apparatus in the 3D space; (see at least [0030] “the server 106 receives information that the processor in the server 106 can use to determine the current location of the user”)
generating, using the one or more processors, a floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the apparatus in the floor plan; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0045] “Referring still to FIG. 2, a plurality of WiFi nodes 208 (e.g., WiFi “hot spots”) are illustrated.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods Sole to determine current location of the apparatus in a 3D space using a location processor, obtain a floor plan of the 3D space, and generate a plan with the transmitters laid out, as taught by Ruiz to guide a user to various resources such as available devices [0018].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Dods does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining, using a sensor of the device, at least one of an image or 3D depth data;
determining, using a location processor, a current location of the device in the 3D space;
generating, using the one or more processors, a virtual floor plan using the image or 3D depth data, the virtual floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the device in the floor plan;
and presenting, using the one or more processors, the virtual floor plan on a display of the device.
In the same field of endeavor, Ruiz discloses:
obtaining, using a sensor of the device, at least one of an image or 3D depth data; (see at least [0013] “the OHMD includes a camera configured to capture images of the surrounding environment.”)
determining, using a location processor, a current location of the device in the 3D space; (see at least [0030] “the server 106 receives information that the processor in the server 106 can use to determine the current location of the user”)
generating, using the one or more processors, a virtual floor plan using the image or 3D depth data, the virtual floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the device in the floor plan; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0045] “Referring still to FIG. 2, a plurality of WiFi nodes 208 (e.g., WiFi “hot spots”) are illustrated.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to determine current location of the apparatus in a 3D space using a location processor, obtain a floor plan of the 3D space, and generate a plan with the transmitters laid out, as taught by Ruiz to guide a user to various resources such as available devices [0018].
In the same field of endeavor, Dooley discloses:
and presenting, using the one or more processors, the floor plan on the display of the display. (see at least [0178] “a display 1004 of a user terminal 1002 presents a floorplan view”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to present a floorplan on the display, as taught by Dooley to allow a user to control and see data from a device in the building [0261].
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dods (US 20120284427), herein after referred to as Dods, in view of Qi (CN 108076511), herein after referred to as Qi, Dooley (US 20170203446), herein after referred to as Dooley, Ruiz (US 20160345137), herein after referred to as Ruiz, and Sole (US 8781397), herein after referred to as Sole
Regarding Claim 5, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 4, and Dods further discloses:
wherein the first and second transmitters are speakers (see at least [0055] “Examples of the peripheral device 600 include, but are not limited to, ... output device (such as a display, speaker(s)”)
Dods does not explicitly disclose:
and the device is a smart watch
In the same field of endeavor, Sole discloses:
(see at least [Col 3, 7-15] “In the examples to be described below, the device initiating pairing is a headset. However the invention is not limited to use with headsets. ... Such devices could include data loggers, dongles, watches and so on.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the handheld device connection field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to provide a watch as the pairing-seeking device, as taught by Sole to provide a plurality of options for devices to pair with peripherals [Col 3].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 6, and Dods further discloses:
wherein the first and second transmitters are speakers (see at least [0055] “Examples of the peripheral device 600 include, but are not limited to, ... output device (such as a display, speaker(s)”)
Dods does not explicitly disclose:
and the device is a smart watch
In the same field of endeavor, Sole discloses:
(see at least [Col 3, 7-15] “In the examples to be described below, the device initiating pairing is a headset. However the invention is not limited to use with headsets. ... Such devices could include data loggers, dongles, watches and so on.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the handheld device connection field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to provide a watch as the pairing-seeking device, as taught by Sole to provide a plurality of options for devices to pair with peripherals [Col 3].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dods (US 20120284427), herein after referred to as Dods, in view of Dooley (US 20170203446), herein after referred to as Dooley, and Ruiz (US 20160345137), herein after referred to as Ruiz.
Regarding Claim 11, Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 8, and Dods further discloses:
a display; (see at least [0029] “the processor 102 processes the received signal for output to the display screen 112 ”)
a wireless transceiver; (see at least [0020] “The communication subsystem 104 receives messages from and sends messages to a wireless network 150”)
a location processor; (see at least [0016] “the processor is configured for: determining a relative location of the available peripheral devices in accordance with magnetic fields uniquely associated with particular peripheral devices”)
Dods does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain, using the wireless transceiver, a floor plan of the 3D space;
determine, using a location processor, a current location of the device in the 3D space;
generate, using the one or more processors, a floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the device in the floor plan;
and present, using the one or more processors, the floor plan on a display of the device.
In the same field of endeavor, Dooley discloses:
and present, using the one or more processors, the floor plan on the display of the display. (see at least [0178] “a display 1004 of a user terminal 1002 presents a floorplan view”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to present a floorplan on the display, as taught by Dooley to allow a user to control and see data from a device in the building [0261].
In the same field of endeavor, Ruiz discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain, using the wireless transceiver, a floor plan of the 3D space; (see at least [0025] “"network 101 may also include any number of computing devices (e.g., computer, servers, routers, network switches, etc.) that are configured to receive and/or transmit data within the network 101." [0066] "the navigation module 414 may access data corresponding to a floor-plan or layout of a building environment (or portions thereof) from memory 108 or another suitable source.”)
determine, using a location processor, a current location of the apparatus in the 3D space; (see at least [0030] “the server 106 receives information that the processor in the server 106 can use to determine the current location of the user”)
generate, using the one or more processors, a floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the apparatus in the floor plan; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0045] “Referring still to FIG. 2, a plurality of WiFi nodes 208 (e.g., WiFi “hot spots”) are illustrated.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods Sole to determine current location of the apparatus in a 3D space using a location processor, obtain a floor plan of the 3D space, and generate a plan with the transmitters laid out, as taught by Ruiz to guide a user to various resources such as available devices [0018].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Dods further discloses:
obtaining, using the one or more processors, user input selecting one of the first or second transmitters for pairing; (see at least [0074] “ The processor 102 monitors for and detects selection input selecting one of the available peripheral devices 600 received by an input device, such as the touch-sensitive display 118, motion detection subsystem 136 or navigation device 122. ”)
and initiating, using the wireless transceiver, pairing with the user-selected transmitter. (see at least [0079] “After an available peripheral device 606 is selected in accordance with selection input, the processor 102 connects to the selected peripheral device 606 using the short-range wireless communication path 706”)
Regarding Claim 13, Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 8, and Dods further discloses:
a sensor; (see at least [0024] “ an optical sensor”)
Dods does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain, using a sensor of the device, at least one of an image or 3D depth data;
determine, using a location processor, a current location of the device in the 3D space;
generate, using the one or more processors, a virtual floor plan using the image or 3D depth data, the virtual floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the device in the floor plan;
and present, using the one or more processors, the virtual floor plan on a display of the device.
In the same field of endeavor, Ruiz discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain, using a sensor of the device, at least one of an image or 3D depth data; (see at least [0013] “the OHMD includes a camera configured to capture images of the surrounding environment.”)
determine, using a location processor, a current location of the device in the 3D space; (see at least [0030] “the server 106 receives information that the processor in the server 106 can use to determine the current location of the user”)
generate, using the one or more processors, a virtual floor plan using the image or 3D depth data, the virtual floor plan showing locations of the first and second transmitters and the device in the floor plan; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0045] “Referring still to FIG. 2, a plurality of WiFi nodes 208 (e.g., WiFi “hot spots”) are illustrated.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to determine current location of the apparatus in a 3D space using a location processor, obtain a floor plan of the 3D space, and generate a plan with the transmitters laid out, as taught by Ruiz to guide a user to various resources such as available devices [0018].
In the same field of endeavor, Dooley discloses:
and present, using the one or more processors, the floor plan on the display of the display. (see at least [0178] “a display 1004 of a user terminal 1002 presents a floorplan view”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the mobile device field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to present a floorplan on the display, as taught by Dooley to allow a user to control and see data from a device in the building [0261].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dods (US 20120284427), herein after referred to as Dods, in view of Dooley (US 20170203446), herein after referred to as Dooley, Ruiz (US 20160345137), herein after referred to as Ruiz, and Sole (US 8781397), herein after referred to as Sole
Regarding Claim 14, modified Dods discloses the limitations of Claim 13, and Dods further discloses:
wherein the first and second transmitters are speakers (see at least [0055] “Examples of the peripheral device 600 include, but are not limited to, ... output device (such as a display, speaker(s)”)
Dods does not explicitly disclose:
and the device is a smart watch
In the same field of endeavor, Sole discloses:
(see at least [Col 3, 7-15] “In the examples to be described below, the device initiating pairing is a headset. However the invention is not limited to use with headsets. ... Such devices could include data loggers, dongles, watches and so on.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the handheld device connection field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dods to provide a watch as the pairing-seeking device, as taught by Sole to provide a plurality of options for devices to pair with peripherals [Col 3].
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 JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662