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 filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With reference to the independent claims, Applicant alleges the references fail to disclose "based on the orientation time being equal to or greater than at least a designated threshold time, identify that two or more external electronic devices, among the plurality of external electronic devices, satisfy the first condition for displaying two or more user interfaces corresponding to the two or more external electronic devices" and "detect that the prioritized order of the two or more user interfaces is changed based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, or the orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices meets a third condition," and "display the two or more user interfaces in the changed prioritized order," as presently claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Meyer clearly discloses based on the orientation time being equal to or greater than at least a designated threshold time (ToF and time different arrival measurements as known in the art requiring threshold orientation time at [0067] and [0073] and FIGS. 7-10), identify that two or more external electronic devices, among the plurality of external electronic devices, satisfy the first condition (FIGS. 7-9 and [0067]-[0072] threshold distance determination at FIGS. 10-14 and [0077]-[0087] determine if pointing at a particular electronic device; longitudinal axis 102 is aligned with stereo system 132 to allow for interaction/display; therein describing multiple interactable objects being identified by the user 120 using the device 10).
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully submits the newly cited reference Karaoguz, properly combined with previously cited references, clearly discloses an UWB signal system for controlling remote devices (Abstract and [0001]-[0003]) that can detect that the prioritized order of the two or more user interfaces is changed based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, or the orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices meets a third condition (FIGS. 3-4, and [0029]-[0037] determination of angle and distance when producing a list of available devices), and display the two or more user interfaces in the changed prioritized order (FIG. 7B and [0052]-[0058] list would be updated in accordance with direction of user, with N illustrating the direction the user is pointing, the list providing the first device in accordance, and clockwise orientation of all other devices within range).
As such, Examiner respectfully submits the references clearly disclose the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, as amended. Therefore, the claims stand properly addressed and rejected below.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 13, 16, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al., 2021/0314493 A1 (hereinafter “Meyer”) in view of Werner et al., US 10,735,900 B1 (hereinafter “Werner”) further in view of Karaoguz, US 2004/0203931 A1 (hereinafter “Karaoguz”).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches an electronic device (FIGS. 1 and 2: 10) comprising:
at least one antenna (FIG. 2: 48 and [0053]; FIGS. 3-6, antenna 48 and antenna array R at [0062]);
a touchscreen display (FIG. 2: 14 and [0030));
memory storing instructions ([0037] and FIG. 2: storage, memory in control circuitry 22); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one antenna, the memory, and the touchscreen display ([0037] and FIG. 2: processing circuitry in control circuitry 22);
wherein the instructions (software at [0038]) when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively ([0038]: control circuitry 22 may be used to run software on device 10), cause the electronic device (FIGS. 1 and 2: 10) to:
receive, through the at least one antenna ([0053]), an ultra-wideband (UWB) signal (UWB being a communication signal 58 at [0065]-[0069]) from a plurality of external electronic devices (FIG.7: 52, 54, 56 and [0065]),
based on the receiving of the UWB signal ([0065]), determine for the plurality of external electronic devices (FIGS. 1 and 2: 10) an orientation angle (FIG. 9, Θ at [0069]-[0072]) (FIGS.7-9: 52 at [0062]-[0072] with nodes 78-1, 78-2) a distance (Meyer, FIGS. 8-9, [0067]-[0069] distances, D, D1 and D2) and an orientation time that the orientation angle and the distance are maintained to satisfy a first condition (FIGS. 7-9 [0027] and [0067]-[0072] orientation time using time of flight, time difference of arrival and angle of arrival techniques, and distance determinations to determine whether suitable action may be taken, (i.e., pairing can be established, the pairing being the first condition [0071]; threshold distance established at FIGS. 10-15 and [0075]-[0078] coming within a certain distance and oriented at a given angle with respect to the object, and provide information accordingly or location and orientation may)),
based on the orientation time being equal to or greater than at least a designated threshold time (ToF and time different arrival measurements as known in the art requiring threshold orientation time at [0067] and [0073] and FIGS. 7-10, iterative and continuously detect FIGS. 7-9 and [0065]-[0072]), identify that two or more external electronic devices, among the plurality of external electronic devices, satisfy the first condition (FIGS. 7-9 and [0067]-[0072] threshold distance determination at FIGS. 10-14 and [0077]-[0087] determine if pointing at a particular electronic device; longitudinal axis 102 is aligned with stereo system 132 to allow for interaction/display; therein describing multiple interactable objects being identified by the user 120 using the device 10).
Although Meyer appears to continuously and iteratively determine the distance between device and node(s) based on time and angle (see Meyer FIGS. 7-9 and [0065]-[0072]) and teaches displaying controls of the devices which are found (FIGS. 10-14 and [0077]-[0087] determine if pointing at a particular electronic device, and music controls displayed when aligned with stereo system 132), Meyer does not explicitly teach displaying identifying two or more devices for displaying two or more user interfaces corresponding to the two or more external electronic devices and display two or more user interfaces, controlling for the two or more external electronic devices satisfying the first condition, in a prioritized order, wherein the prioritized order is an order according to the orientation time of the two or more external electronic devices,
detect that the prioritized order of the two or more user interfaces is changed based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, or the orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices meets a third condition, and
display the two or more user interfaces in the changed prioritized order.
In the same field of endeavor, Werner discloses a system of pairing in-range spatially aware devices (Abstract) capable of identifying two or more devices for displaying two or more user interfaces corresponding to the two or more external electronic devices (FIGS. 7-9 and particularly FIG. 8 col. 16, lines 7-47 capable of identifying the two or more device that are nearby) and display two or more user interfaces (FIG. 8 and col. 16, lines 7-47 with icons 860, 870, 880), controlling for the two or more external electronic devices satisfying the first condition (FIG. 8 and col. 16, lines 7-47 with icons 860, 870, 880), in a prioritized order (FIGS. 7-9 and col. 9, lines 50-end and col 10, lines 1-55, describing displaying based on an importance score an ordered list of nearby devices, further FIG. 8, lines 7-47 with prominence of 860 being greater than 870 and 880 as indicated by different sizes of the user interfaces), wherein the prioritized order is an order according to the orientation time of the two or more external electronic devices (FIGS. 7-10 and col. 13, lines 13-52 describing timing determination in relationship to rank order of the devices, and col 10, lines 1-55, describing ranking methodologies including angular information of the devices and displaying ranking therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device location determination and communication system of Meyer to incorporate displaying the prioritized list and scoring of devices as disclosed by Werner because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods for identifying and communicating with various devices in an environment. The motivation to combine these references would have been to mitigate the inaccuracies caused by obstructive elements, thereby improving detection and connection with a neighboring device while reducing time required to do so (see Werner at Abstract and col. 10, lines 1-55). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Meyer in view of Werner does not explicitly disclose detect that the prioritized order of the two or more user interfaces is changed based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, or the orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices meets a third condition, and display the two or more user interfaces in the changed prioritized order.
In the same field of endeavor, Karaoguz discloses a UWB signal system for controlling remote devices (Abstract and [0001]-[0003]) that can detect that the prioritized order of the two or more user interfaces is changed based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, or the orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices meets a third condition (FIGS. 3-4, and [0029]-[0037] determination of angle and distance when producing a list of available devices), and display the two or more user interfaces in the changed prioritized order (FIG. 7B and [0052]-[0058] list would be updated in accordance with direction of user, with N illustrating the direction the user is pointing, the list providing the first device in accordance, and clockwise orientation of all other devices within range).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device location determination and communication system of Meyer in view of Werner to incorporate the list updating of in-range devices based on distance and/orientation as disclosed by Karaoguz because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and method for determining and controlling devices with near-field communication schemes. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve intended wireless communication between devices within an area (see Karaoguz at least at [0005]-[0006]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the third criteria includes a range of the origination angle of + 30 degrees to -30 degrees (Meyer [0071] and FIG. 9: the orientation angle being within a given range of axis 102 corresponds at least the orientation angle meeting a third criterion (i.e., if the angle deviates in another direction from the axis 102 while still being in the range); in view of Werner at FIGS. 5-7 with angular range of 25 degrees 514 and 640, at col. 8, lines 32-59 and col. 9, lines 1-35, and col. 9, lines 59-end; the angular range would be -12.5 degrees and + 12.5 degrees, which falls within the range; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to prioritize the devices that are in the field of view of the user, the range of which may be determinable, adjustable, and defined based various conditions known in the art (e.g., power limitations, environmental conditions, etc.) Werner at col. 9, lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 13, it is similar in scope to claim 1 above, the only difference being claim 13 is directed to a method (Meyer addressing the method steps at FIGS. 6-9 and 14-15; at [0066]-[0072], [0077] and [0084]-[0091]). Therefore, claim 13 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is similar in scope to claim 5 above; therefore, claim 16 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, it is similar in scope to claim 1, the only difference being claim 19 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions (Meyer at [0037] and FIG. 2: memory in control circuitry 22) that, when executed by one or more processors individually or collectively (Meyer [0037] and FIG. 2: processing circuitry in control circuitry 22) of an electronic device, cause the electronic device (Meyer at FIGS. 1 and 2: 10) to perform operations, the operations comprising steps similar to claim 1 (see above). Therefore, claim 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz discloses the method of claim 16 (see above), wherein the displaying the user interface whose prioritized order is changed comprises extending a display size of user interface whose prioritized order is changed (Werner at col. 10, lines 16-40; FIG. 7, col. 14, lines 23-46; FIG. 8 and col. 16, lines 7-47 with icons 860, 870, 880, most prominent icon produced is for the highest prioritized/ranked, which will change according to user’s position and relative importance/rank as would be understood by one of ordinary skill).
Regarding claim 22, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz discloses the method of claim 21 (see above), wherein when a first predesignated time elapses from a time when the UWB signal is undetected (Werner at FIG. 3 and col. 6, lines 45-57 describing detection, and FIG. 8, updating interface over a period of time at col. 16, lines 51-end and col. 17, lines 1-4) the extended user interface is shrunken back to a prior size (Werner at FIG. 3 and col. 6, lines 45-57 describing detection, and FIG. 8, updating interface over a period of time at col. 16, lines 51-end and col. 17, lines 1-4, in view of Werner at col. 16, lines 7-47 describing size differentiation accordingly), and wherein when a second predesignated time elapses from a time when the extended user interface is shrunken back to the prior size, stopping display of the user interface (Werner at FIG. 3 and col. 6, lines 45-57 describing detection, and FIG. 8, updating interface over a period of time at col. 16, lines 51-end and col. 17, lines 1-4, in view of Werner at col. 16, lines 7-47 describing size differentiation accordingly, and possible elimination of non-detected icons therein, including a heuristics to minimize updates when the user’s intentions are to view the list, an undetected object for a threshold amount of time (outside of view or range) may be considered a heuristic as known by one of ordinary skill).
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Ko et al., US 2015/0326704 A1 (hereinafter “Ko”).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz discloses the electronic device of claim 2 (see above).
However, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to display the two or more user interfaces changed to be extended, based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, and the orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices meets a fourth criterion.
In the same field of endeavor, Ko teaches effective control of at least one device (Ko, paragraph [0003)), cause an electronic device (FIG. 57: 4300) to display the two or more user interface changed to be extended, based on determining that at least one of an orientation angle, a distance, and an orientation time for any one of the two or more external electronic devices (FIG. 57: 4310-4330) meets a fourth criteria (See paragraph [0279]: the icon 4331 is extended based on the device being controlled for the longest time (an orientation time meeting a fourth criterion)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device as taught by Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz by causing the electronic device to display the user interface changed to be extended, based on determining that at least one of the orientation angle, the distance, and the orientation time for any one of the plurality of external electronic devices meets a fourth criterion (as taught by Ko). Doing so would allow the user to recognize which of the plurality of external devices are most frequently accessed (See Ko, paragraph [0279]).
Regarding Claim 7, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz further view of Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 6 (see above), wherein the two or more user interfaces includes at least one graphic element (Meyer at FIGS. 14 and 15: 136 and 138) configured to control the two or more external electronic devices (Meyer at [0086)).
Regarding Claim 17, it is similar in scope to claim 6 above; therefore, claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18, it is similar in scope to claim 7 above; therefore, claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al., US 2016/0135233 Al (hereinafter “Fujita”).
Regarding Claim 8, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz disclose the electronic device of claim 1 (see above).
However, Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz does not explicitly discloses the instructions cause the electronic device to refrain from displaying the two or more user interfaces when the UWB signal is not detected for a predesignated time or longer.
In the same field of endeavor, Fujita discloses a wireless communication device (Fujita, [0001]) that can cause an electronic device (FIG. 13: 100) to refrain from displaying the two or more user interfaces (FIG. 7A, showing a user interface W1) when a UWB signal ([0089]) is not detected for a predesignated time or longer ([0094] and FIG. 6: at S80 if the time elapsed from the previous reception of the directional signal reaches a threshold, the controller 162 erases the management information, which is extracted from the directional signal, and the time stamp from the memory 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device (as taught by Meyer in view of Werner further in view of Karaoguz) by causing the electronic device to refrain from displaying the user interface when the UWB signal is not detected for a predesignated time or longer (as taught by Fujita). Doing so would reduce the power consumption of the external electronic device (See Fujita, paragraph [0088)]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsui, US 2004/0121725 A1: Abstract and FIGS. 6A-10, describing remote control device and display of interfaces based on orientation of device in relation to controllable device;
Hirabayashi et al., US 2016/0163190 A1: Abstract and FIGS. 1-10D, terminal device and remote control method based on direction and location of the devices;
Wang et al., US 2018/0322774 A1: Abstract and FIGS. 2-6B, describing remote control method and system using UWB and calculating positional data to determine controllable devices;
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 SARVESH J. NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights