DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 4/24/2024.
Claims 1-11 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kramar et al. (US 2021/0229630), hereinafter Kramar.
The applied reference has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per claim 1, Kramar teaches the following:
a computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component, (See Fig. 1, 118)), comprising:
one or more processors, (see Fig. 1, 120); and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, (see Fig. 1, 102), the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting completion of a respective process. See subsequent limitations for addressing of completion of different processes; and
in response to detecting the completion of the respective process:
in accordance with a determination that the respective process that was completed is a first process and that a second process, different from the first process, has not been completed, displaying, via the display generation component, a first option that, when activated, initiates the second process. See Fig. 8X;
in accordance with a determination that the respective process that was completed is the first process and that the second process has been completed, forgoing displaying the first option that, when activated, initiates the second process. As Kramar shows in Fig. 6H, and corresponding paragraph [0204], in response to successfully adding the key, (first process completed), a success message is displayed, where the key may only be added if wireless transmission was enabled (second process completed);
in accordance with a determination that the respective process that was completed is the second process and that the first process has not been completed, displaying, via the display generation component, a second option that, when activated, initiates the first process. As Kramar teaches in paragraph [0220], and corresponding Fig. 6S, in response to the user utilizing a configured “car key” (second process completed), the user is prompted to “start pairing” 684 (first process not completed).
in accordance with a determination that the respective process that was completed is the second process and that the first process has been completed, forgoing displaying the second option that, when activated, initiates the first process. See Fig. 8X.
For clarity, the Examiner interprets Kramar as teaching Applicant’s claim 1 in that Applicant’s “first process” is that of device pairing of Kramar and Applicant’s “second process” is that of car key configuration of Kramar. While Kramar teaches of first pairing devices before car key configuration, Kramar also teaches that a car key may be previously configured (second process completed) and the devices may require pairing before use (first process not completed) as seen in Figs. 6Q-6S.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kramar teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Kramar further teaches the following:
wherein detecting completion of the respective process includes receiving data from an external device. As Kramar teaches in paragraph [0201], information is transferred between devices for pairing.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kramar teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Kramar further teaches the following:
wherein the first process includes pairing the computer system with a first external device. As Kramar teaches in paragraph [0201], information is transferred between devices for pairing.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kramar teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Kramar further teaches the following:
the second process includes configuring the computer system as a key for a second external device. As Kramar teaches in paragraph [0223], in response to successfully pairing a device as a “car key”, the user is prompted to set up the car key “on your phone”.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kramar teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Kramar further teaches the following:
the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the completion of the respective process, displaying, via the display generation component, an indication that the respective process is complete. See Fig. 6H.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kramar teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Kramar further teaches the following:
displaying the first option includes displaying the first option after displaying the indication that the respective process is complete. As Kramar shows in Fig. 11, upon downloading smart key structure information completing, the user is presented a “complete” message. As Kramar teaches in paragraph [0205], and corresponding Figs. 6H and 6I, after displaying a “pairing success” message, the display automatically transitions to interface 6I with option 642 (first option).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kramar teaches the system of claim 5 as described above. Kramar further teaches the following:
displaying the second option includes displaying the second option after displaying the indication that the respective process is complete. As Kramar shows in Fig. 11, upon downloading smart key structure information completing, the user is presented a “complete” message. As Kramar teaches in paragraph [0205], and corresponding Figs. 6H and 6I, after displaying a “pairing success” message, the display automatically transitions to interface 6I with option 642 (first option).
As per claim 10, Kramar teaches the following:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component, (see Fig. 63).
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 11, Kramar teaches the following:
a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component, (see Fig. 63).
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramar as applied to claims 1 and 5, in view of Behzadi et al. (US 2022/0035510), hereinafter Behzadi.
The applied Behzadi reference has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 7, Kramar teaches the system of claim 5 as described above. However, Kramar does not explicitly teach of displaying option obscuring completion indications. In a similar field of endeavor, Behazdi teaches of pairing devices (see paragraph [0203]. Kramar in view of Behazdi further teaches the following:
displaying the first option includes displaying the first option by partially obscuring the indication that the respective process is complete. As Behazdi shows in Fig. 6C, and corresponding paragraph [0204], a process control 624 may be presented overlaying an interface presented previously. Therefore, upon the modification, a next process control of Kramar may be displayed overlaying a process success message utilizing the overlay method of Behazdi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the process success and process initiation controls of Kramar with the control overlay of Behazdi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the overlay method of Behazdi would benefit users of Kramar in allowing the user to have visual confirmation WHILE a control is displayed, as opposed to displaying confirmation and immediately hiding said confirmation in order to display the control, where the user may not have noticed the visual confirmation.
Regarding claim 9, Kramar teaches the system of claim 5 as described above. However, Kramar does not explicitly teach of displaying option obscuring completion indications. In a similar field of endeavor, Behazdi teaches of pairing devices (see paragraph [0203]. Kramar in view of Behazdi further teaches the following:
displaying the second option includes displaying the second option by partially obscuring the indication that the respective process is complete. As Behazdi shows in Fig. 6C, and corresponding paragraph [0204], a process control 624 may be presented overlaying an interface presented previously. Therefore, upon the modification, a next process control of Kramar may be displayed overlaying a process success message utilizing the overlay method of Behazdi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the process success and process initiation controls of Kramar with the control overlay of Behazdi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the overlay method of Behazdi would benefit users of Kramar in allowing the user to have visual confirmation WHILE a control is displayed, as opposed to displaying confirmation and immediately hiding said confirmation in order to display the control, where the user may not have noticed the visual confirmation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Hoofard et al. (US 11,305,953), teaches of displaying sequences of controls, where a following control is not presented until a present control is operated. Further teaches of a previous control (see Fig. 5B) and control overrides (see Fig. 5A).
-**Kim et al. (US 2015/0262441), interfaces for installing smart key to device and setting restrictions. See Fig. 25.
-Vincenti (US 2016/0055699), whole reference
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174