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 .
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-15, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 7-15, 20 recite limitation “… between the peripheral device …“ instead of “… between the external peripheral device …“. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/14/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 16-19 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-15, 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Michels in view of Takahashi et al and further in view of Alex et al and further in view of Sankaran and further in view of LaBosco disclose a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed cause a processor of a computing device to: determine whether a virtual meeting has been initiated by the computing device; monitor, by a wireless receiver of the computing device for a wireless signal from an external peripheral device, wherein the wireless signal is a keepalive packet transmitted by the peripheral device to maintain a wireless connection between the peripheral device and the computing device; receive motion data from the peripheral device, the motion data describing motion of the peripheral device; determine, in response to receiving the motion data being received with the wireless signal, a location of the peripheral device relative to the computing device between the peripheral device and the wireless receiver; and cause, based on the location of the peripheral device, a microphone to adjust a beamforming direction of the microphone towards the location of the peripheral device; but do not expressly disclose monitor, by a wireless receiver of the computing device in response to the virtual meeting being initiated, for a wireless signal from an external peripheral device, wherein the wireless signal is a keepalive packet; determine, in response to receiving the motion data being received with the wireless signal, a location of the peripheral device relative to the computing device based on a signal strength of the keepalive packet.
None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “monitor, by a wireless receiver of the computing device in response to the virtual meeting being initiated, for a wireless signal from an external peripheral device, wherein the wireless signal is a keepalive packet; determine, in response to receiving the motion data being received with the wireless signal, a location of the peripheral device relative to the computing device based on a signal strength of the keepalive packet”
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al (US 2019/0069080 A1) in view of Sankaran (US 2021/0368291 A1) and further in view of Bonanno et al (US 2018/0359609 A1) and further in view of (Yong et al (WO 2022/247407 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abrams et al disclose a computing device (Abrams et al; Fig 2), comprising: a microphone (Abrams et al; Fig 2; Para [0021]; microphone array 40): a first wireless receiver (Abrams et al; Fig 2; Para [0021]) and a second wireless receiver (Abrams et al; Fig 2; Para [0021]), and a processor (Abrams et al; Fig 2; Para [0021]), wherein the processor is for: receive a wireless signal from an external peripheral device (Abrams et al; Para [0023][0090]; peripheral device 90): determine a location of the peripheral device (Abrams et al; Para [0023][0026]), and cause, based on the location of the peripheral device, the microphone to adjust a beamforming direction of the microphone (Abrams et al; Para [0022]), but do not expressly disclose wherein the wireless signal is keepalive packet transmitted by the peripheral device to maintain a wireless connection between peripheral device and the computing device determine a location of the peripheral device based on a first signal strength of the keepalive packet between the peripheral device and the first wireless receiver and a second signal strength of the keepalive packet between the peripheral device and the second wireless receiver. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran discloses a device wherein the wireless signal is keepalive packet transmitted by the peripheral device to maintain a wireless connection between peripheral device and the computing device (Sankaran; Para [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the location detection taught by Sankaran as location detection for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the accuracy of the determined location (Sankaran; Para [0039]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Bonanno et al disclose a device comprising a first signal strength of the keepalive packet and a second signal strength of the keepalive packet (Bonanno et al; Para [0063]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the packet taught by Bonanno as wireless packet for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the device location (Bonanno et al; Para [0007]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Yong et al disclose a device comprising determine a location of the peripheral device based on a first signal strength between the peripheral device and the first wireless receiver and a second signal strength between the peripheral device and the second wireless receiver (Yong et al; Para [0080]-[0086]; detect location of wearable device based on antenna array received signal of the mobile device from the wearable device). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the location detection taught by Yong as location detection for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the accuracy of positioning the wearable electronic device (Yong et al; Para [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al disclose the computing device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the signal strength is a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with the keepalive packet. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bonanno et al disclose a device wherein the signal strength is a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with the keepalive packet (Bonanno et al; Para [0053]; keep alive signal interpreted as keepalive packet). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the packet taught by Bonanno as wireless packet for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the device location (Bonanno et al; Para [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al disclose the computing device of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is to determine the location of the peripheral device in response to the RSSI exceeding a threshold amount. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yong et al disclose a device wherein the processor is to determine the location of the peripheral device in response to the RSSI exceeding a threshold amount (Yong et al; Para [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the location detection taught by Yong as location detection for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the accuracy of positioning the wearable electronic device (Yong et al; Para [0083]).
Regarding claim 19, Abrams et al in view of Yong et al and further in view of Bonanno et al disclose the computing device of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second signal strength is a received second RSSI associated with the keepalive packet; and wherein the processor is to determine the location of the peripheral device based on a comparison of the first RSSI to a threshold amount and a comparison of the second RSSI to the threshold amount. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bonanno et al disclose a device wherein the second signal strength is a received second RSSI associated with the keepalive packet (Bonanno et al; Para [0053]; keep alive signal interpreted as keepalive packet). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the packet taught by Bonanno as wireless packet for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the device location (Bonanno et al; Para [0007]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Yong et al disclose a device wherein the processor is to determine the location of the peripheral device based on a comparison of the first RSSI to a threshold amount and a comparison of the second RSSI to the threshold amount (Yong et al; Para [0080]-[0086]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the location detection taught by Yong as location detection for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the accuracy of positioning the wearable electronic device (Yong et al; Para [0083]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al (US 2019/0069080 A1) in view of Sankaran (US 2021/0368291 A1) and further in view of Bonanno et al (US 2018/0359609 A1) and further in view of (Yong et al (WO 2022/247407 A1) and further in view of Altman et al (US 2016/0031087 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is to adjust the beamforming direction towards the location of the peripheral device (Abrams et al; Para [0022]), but do not expressly disclose wherein the peripheral device is a stylus. However, in the same field of endeavor, Altman et al disclose a device based on a signal strength between the peripheral device and the wireless receiver (Altman et al; Para [0360]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the stylus taught by Altman as peripheral for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a plurality of options of peripherals to the user of the computing device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al (US 2019/0069080 A1) in view of Sankaran (US 2021/0368291 A1) and further in view of Bonanno et al (US 2018/0359609 A1) and further in view of Yong et al (WO 2022/247407 A1) and further in view of Mincher et al (US 10,282,697 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al disclose the computing device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is to adjust the beamforming direction via a daemon. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mincher et al disclose a device wherein the processor is to adjust the beamforming direction via a daemon (Mincher et al; col 25; lines 5-15; col 11; lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the beamforming taught by Mincher as beamforming for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to enhance the experience of the user (Mincher et al; col 7; lines 35-38).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al (US 2019/0069080 A1) in view of Sankaran (US 2021/0368291 A1) and further in view of Bonanno et al (US 2018/0359609 A1) and further in view of Yong et al (WO 2022/247407 A1) and further in view of Kurtz et al (US 2020/0342871 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al disclose the computing device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is to cease adjustment of the beamforming direction of the microphone in response to not receiving motion data from the peripheral device within a threshold of time, indicating the peripheral device is stationary. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurtz et al disclose a device wherein the processor is to cease adjustment of the beamforming direction of the microphone in response to not receiving motion data from the peripheral device within a threshold of time, indicating the peripheral device is stationary (Kurtz et al; Para [0029][0056][0059]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the adaptive beamforming taught by Kurtz as beamforming for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce power consumption (Kurtz et al; Para [0002]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al (US 2019/0069080 A1) in view of Sankaran (US 2021/0368291 A1) and further in view of Bonanno et al (US 2018/0359609 A1) and further in view of Yong et al (WO 2022/247407 A1) and further in view of Kurtz et al (US 2020/0342871 A1) and further in view of Ferdman et al (US 2017/0324861 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al and further in view of Kurtz et al disclose the computing device of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose wherein the peripheral device comprises at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of an accelerometer and a gyroscopic sensor to provide the motion data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ferdman et al disclose a device wherein the peripheral device comprises at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of an accelerometer and a gyroscopic sensor to provide the motion data (Ferdman et al; Para [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the sensor taught by Ferdman as location sensor for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a plurality of position sensor options to the user of the device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al (US 2019/0069080 A1) in view of Sankaran (US 2021/0368291 A1) and further in view of Bonanno et al (US 2018/0359609 A1) and further in view of Yong et al (WO 2022/247407 A1) and further in view of Takahashi et al (US 2019/0386844 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Abrams et al in view of Sankaran and further in view of Bonanno and further in view of Yong et al disclose the computing device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is to determine whether a virtual meeting has been initiated; and receive the wireless signal from the peripheral device in response to the virtual meeting being initiated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahashi et al disclose a device wherein the processor is to determine whether a virtual meeting has been initiated (Takahashi et al; Para [0053]); and receive the wireless signal from the peripheral device in response to the virtual meeting being initiated (Takahashi et al; Para [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the peripheral activation taught by Takahashi as peripheral activation for the device taught by Abrams. The motivation to do so would have been to activate a peripheral device even without a user's input of an operation (Takahashi et al; Para [0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights