DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is FINAL.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 8/3/2026.
Application filed on 5/7/2024 with priority date of 4/17/2024 based on PCT application PCT/CN2024/088412.
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1-2, 5-9, 15, 18-19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 15, 18-19 in the amendment filed on 8/3/2026.
The previous claim objections to claim 1 is respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered, and they are not persuasive; a new ground of rejection has been set forth below for the amended claims filed on 8/3/2026.
The applicant argues on pages 1-2 for claims 1, 15, and 18 that the previously cited primary art Karuppiah does not anticipate “automatic processor selection”, because Karuppiah recites a “manual mode” that is directed to a user selection, rather than processor automatic selection. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the amended claimed invention requires a swipe gesture to initiate the application transfer process, then an automatic selection of a target device “by the one or more processors”; while Karuppiah teaches a directional swipe that performs both selection of a target device via the swipe direction and initiation of the user application operation transfer on the source device. The examiner notes all operations happening on the source device are performed by processor(s), including processing of the swipe gesture, and determination of the direction of the swipe to automatically select a target device based on the direction. The “manual mode” and “automatic mode” from Karuppiah are presented in the context of initiation of the application transfer, where manual mode requires a user input to initiate the transfer, and automatic mode doesn’t require user input. Thus, Karuppiah as cited teaches all of the amended limitations of claim 1, 15, and 18 except a predefined selection criterion/determination of “most optimized” companion electronic device. Emmert ([0016, 0018]) teaches an automatic selection of an optimum media device (MD), also by processor(s), based on criteria such as pixel count, screen size, audio quality, format compatibility, etc., to present media content on the selected MD. It’s obvious the method of transferring application operation based on predefined selection criteria for the target device can also include additional criteria such as the most optimized device as taught by Emmert. Accordingly, Karuppiah and Emmert together teach the amended claim 1, 15, and 18. The applicant additionally argues for claim 13 for the same reasons as claims 1, 15, and 18, The examiner respectfully disagrees and counter asserts the same rationale set forth above for claim 1, 15, and 18.
The applicant argued for claim 2-3 on pages 2-4 that Wang does not teach selecting a companion device from a plurality of as destination for transferring operation of an application, and the previous action failed to articulate a reasoned basis for the combination of Karuppiah and Wang. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang ([0096]) is cited to teach using both a proximity to and orientation of a source device relative to the plurality of companion device as a predefined criterion, while Karuppiah is cited to teach the limitations from claim 1 for selection of a companion device from a plurality of devices as target for transferring operation of an application. The Karuppiah, Emmert and Wang references together teach the scope of claim 2. The previous action (page 7 ¶28) stated Wang’s teaching of using both proximity and orientation of the source device relative to the plurality of target devices can be utilized as another way to determine the target device by modifying the teachings of Karuppiah, and recited Wang ([0035]) as teaching a rational for the combination - improvement of accuracy in identifying a target device among a plurality of devices for a gesture based on additional information obtained through UWB signals. The applicant additionally argues for claim 3 for the same reasons as claim 2, The examiner respectfully disagrees and counter asserts the same rationale set forth above for claim 2.
The applicant argued for claim 4 on pages 4-5 that the cited art Sriram has not been established as available prior art, and has not established rationales for the Karuppiah, Wang, Sriram combination. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the earliest priority date of Sriram is 4/16/2024, based on the filing date of the provisional application (63/634842), which is before the effective filing date of the instant application 4/17/2024. The provisional application (63/634842 [0087]) further includes the claimed feature of using Bluetooth channel sounding process to track and locate devices nearby. The examiner further notes, as set forth in the rejection section below, Sriram teaches the Bluetooth sounding process may help devices to adapt to changing environmental conditions, optimize communication reliability and data through, and improve overall performance and robustness of Bluetooth connections (Sriram [0109]), and having it as a supplement/alternative to the teachings of Karuppiah-Wang would also provide an alternative method to locate and track devices that may not have UWB signals capabilities.
The applicant further argues for claim 5-9 on pages 7-8, more specifically for claim 5, that Emmert teaches optimized presentation of media content, rather than the most optimized device to operate the application. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the Emmert is cited to teach the concept of selecting a target device based on the predefined criteria of determining a most optimized device. The combination of Karuppiah and Emmert together teaches the claimed invention of selecting the most optimized device to transfer an application. The combination was not made based on bodily incorporating Emmert into teaching of the primary reference Karuppiah, but rather as an customizable alternative to supplement the teaching of Karuppiah so that target device selection can also be made based on the most optimized device. The applicant additionally argues for a lack of rationale to combine the two reference. The examiner notes, as set in the rejection section below, combining Emmert with Karuppiah helps to identify an optimum capable media device among proximate media devices to present a media content or transfer an application based on capabilities of the approximate devices (Emmert [0003-0004, 0018, 0022]), and provide additional automatic selection criterion based on capabilities/most optimized device as an alternative option for the users, improving user experiences. The applicant additionally argues for claims 6-9 based on the same rationales argued for claim 5, the examiner respectfully disagrees and counter asserts the same rationales argued above for claim 5.
The applicant further argues for claims 10-11, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 on pages 8-11 that Coffman does not teach using usage history as the predefined criterion for selecting a companion electronic device to which operation of an application will be transferred. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the applicant argues for claim 10-11, Coffman teaches a media control interface, not a processor based selection of a companion electronic device from a plurality of as a function of application usage history for transferring operation of the application. The examiner notes Coffman ([0514-518] Fig. 12B-12E, 12I) teaches a user interface of a media application where an approximate device was selected and presented in the user interface based on usage history of the media application, as a predefined criterion, where the same media application’s operation was last presented in the approximate device, i.e. Fig. 12H-12I shows the media content was last played on the iPhone device itself, where Fig. 12B-12D shows that the media content was last played on the approximate device; which teaches the limitations of claim 10 and 11. The applicant additionally argues for the rationale to combine the references. The examiner notes, as set forth in the action below, the combination of the reference can provide additional alternative way of predefined criteria for selecting a device to transfer the application operation, such as selecting a device the application’s operation was previously transfer to; it additionally may help users to view past history of content/operation transfer to provide additional information/selections to the users, to help the users to make informed decisions on the operation transfer, improving user experiences.
The applicant also argues for claim 14 and 16 that Coffman does not teach recalling operation of the application from the companion device in response to a gesture and resuming operation on the electronic device. The examiner notes Coffman ([0548-0549, 0551, 0581] Fig. 12Z, 12Y-12AA) teach in response to a pullback user gesture, the media content that was previously playing on a nearby device can be recalled and the playback operation resuming on the local device. The combination was not made with bodily incorporation of the teaching from Coffman into the teachings of Karuppiah, but combining the concept taught by Coffman into the teachings of Karuppiah.
The applicant additionally argues for claim 17 and 20 that Coffman does not teach animation of a graphical user interface of the foreground application while the operation is transferred to the selected companion device. The examiner notes Cofffman ([0549-0551] Fig. 12Z-12AA) teaches animation of the user interface element as part of the transfer of operation of media content playback in response to user input. The same concept of animation in response to user input can be applied to the teaching of Karuppiah.
The applicant further argues for claim 12 that Karuppiah in view of Coffman and Sharma do not teach the claimed invention of claim 12 and also lacks rationales to combine. The examiner notes, set in the rejection section below, Sharman ([0046]) teaches media content item may be transmitted to television receiver on a periodic or scheduled basis, so the television receiver is transmitted the particular content item based on the detected pattern of past viewing at certain times and certain days. The same concept of selecting a TV/companion device to transfer the media playback operation for a specific time of the day can be applied to the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman, so that specific device can be selected based on both the past playback history of devices and set schedule/detected pattern of this operation transfer. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable target device selection additionally and alternatively through past time based usage patterns, and provide users with possible targets based on the past time based usage patterns to help the users to make decisions on the operation transfer, improving user experiences.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 is respectfully withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Per claim 1, claim 1 recites, in the last limitation, “… transferring, by the one of more processors using a communication device … , operation of the application … to the companion electronic device identified by the one or more processors to the companion electronic device most optimized to operate the application” (emphasis added), where the sentence reads awkwardly, the examiner presumes the limitation is intended to be:
“… transferring, by the one or more processors … , operation of the application … to the companion electronic device identified by the one or more process as the companion device most optimized to operate the application”.
Per claim 15, claim 15 recites “… wherein the one or more processor, in response to … , prioritize a plurality of companion electronic devices as function of a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is most optimized to operate a foreground application to automatically select a companion electronic device from the plurality of companion electronic devices and automatically cause the communication device to transfer operation of a foreground application operating on the one or more processors to the companion electronic device selected”, the examiner presumes the second instant of foreground application is intended to refer to the first instant, and should have been “the foreground application”.
Per claim 18, claim 18 recites in the last limitation “… in response to the swipe gesture causing, by one or more processors using a communication device, operation of the foreground application of the application stack to be transferred to the companion electronic device selected using the selection criterion without requiring additional input user input to identify the companion electronic device”. The examiner presume the bolded portion should be “additional user input to” without the redundant word “input”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1, 5-9, 13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppiah et al. (US Pub 20220210231, hereinafter Karuppiah), in view of Emmert et al. (US Pub 20080235599, hereinafter Emmert).
Per claim 1, Karuppiah teaches:
A method in an electronic device, the method comprising: (abstract: method of transferring user session between a source device and a target device);
receiving, by a user interface, a swipe gesture across a graphical user interface of an application operating on one or more processors of the electronic device while a plurality of companion electronic devices is operating within an environment of the electronic device, ([0010-0011] a user may initiate a user session transfer request by swiping a touch screen interface of a source device when the user is accessing the application (graphical user interface of an application) at the source device; where one or more target devices (plurality of companion electronic devices) may be presented via the interface for selection based on their proximity to the source device (within an environment)), the swipe gesture requesting transfer of the application to a companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic device; ([0011] the user may use a swipe input in a particular direction to select a target device for session transfer, among one or more target devices represented as tiles);
automatically selecting, by the one or more processors, a companion electronic device from the plurality of companion electronic devices operating within the environment of the electronic device as a function of at least one predefined criterion, ([0010-0011] a plurality of target device may be presented as tiles via the interface for selection to initiate the user session transfer, a directional (predefined criterion) swipe input can automatically select one of the presented target device and initiate the user session transfer to the selected device);
transferring, by the one or more processors using a communication device in response to the swipe gesture, operation of the application operating on the one or more processors to the companion electronic device identified by the one or more processors ([0011, 0021-0023] Fig. 2 shows when the transfer is initiated, i.e. via the directional swipe gesture, the operation of the application, i.e. zoom video conference, is transferred to the target device at step 210-240, where the user can continue the application session, i.e. zoom session, at step 250 the original user session at the source device is terminated after the transfer is complete).
Although Karuppiah teaches automatically selecting a target device via a directional swipe gesture, and automatically initiating the session transfer to the selected target device ([0010-0011]), Karuppiah does not explicitly teach selection of most optimized device: “… automatically selecting, …, wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises a determination of which companion electronic device is most optimized to operate …; transferring …, … to the companion electronic device most optimized to operate …”.
However, Emmert teaches:
… automatically selecting, … wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises a determination of which companion electronic device is most optimized to operate …; ([0018] Fig. 3 shows a flowchart of a method for an optimized presentation of media, where any media devices (MD) in proximate area identified at step 306, and evaluated for their respective capabilities at step 308, the optimum/optimized MDs may be determined based on criteria such as screen size, audio quality format compatibility etc. of the MDs at step 310-312).
transferring …, … to the companion electronic device most optimized to operate … ([0016, 0018] Fig. 3 shows at step 318, the media content is transferred to selected MD which is optimum/optimized MD, which may then proceed to present the media).
Emmert and Karuppiah are analogous art because Emmert also teaches a method of selection of a device for presentation of an application content in response to a transfer request of a content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah and Emmert before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah to include teachings of Emmert so that an optimized target device can be selected as a selection criterion to transfer an application operation presenting media content or other type of application. One would be motivated to make this combination to helps to identify an optimally capable media device among proximate media devices to present a media content or transfer an application based on capabilities of the approximate devices (Emmert [0003-0004, 0018, 0022]), and provide additional automatic selection criterion based on capabilities/most optimized device as an alternative option for the users, improving user experiences
Per claim 5, Karuppiah-Emmert teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and they further teach:
wherein the operation of the application is automatically transferred without additional user input beyond the swipe gesture. (Karuppiah [0011] user can use a single directional swipe to both select target transfer target device and initiate transfer of the session without additional user input beyond the swipe gesture).
Per claim 6, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the application comprises a music player application and the companion electronic device comprises a music player.(Karuppiah [0014-0016] client device include television, multimedia device, etc. where session transfer can happen over content such as audio-only media, such as music, and other streaming content).
Per claim 7, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the application comprises a productivity application and the companion electronic device comprises a computer. (Karuppiah [0014, 0022-0021] client devices 110 includes computer, mobile devices; and a productivity application, i.e. zoom conference application, may be transferred from the source device to a target computer device with the same available application discovered within a predefined proximity of the source device).
Per claim 8, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the application comprises a gaming application and the companion electronic device is operable by a gaming controller. (Karuppiah [0014-0016] client device include computer, gaming device, etc. where session transfer can happen for streaming content and other data services utilizing services provided by a multimedia device 130 from a service provider/subscription, such as games).
Per claim 9, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the application comprises an audio/visual application and the companion electronic device comprises a television. (Karuppiah [0014-0016] client device include television, multimedia device, etc. where session transfer can happen over content such as video, streaming contents and other data services utilizing services provided by a multimedia device 130 from a service provider/subscription, such as TV programs).
Per claim 13, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitations of claim 1, and they further teach:
wherein the application operating on the one or more processors comprises a foreground application operating on an application stack, (Karuppiah [0010-0011, 0019-0021] the source device has the application in the foreground with a running user session, i.e. zoom conference, where user can initiate a transfer) further comprising surfacing a penultimate application of the application stack on the user interface as a new foreground application after the transferring. (Karuppiah [0021-0023]: Fig. 2 shows after the application user session, i.e. zoom conference, has been successfully transferred to the target device, the existing user session on the source device is terminated at step 250, it’s obvious after foreground app terminate, the next layer of application, such as desktop, would appear).
Per claim 15, Karuppiah teaches:
An electronic device, comprising: (Fig. 1 source device 110);
a user interface; ([0010-0011] source device with a user interface);
a communication device; and ([0034] Fig. 5 input/output device 540);
one or more processors operable with the user interface and communication device; ([0031] Fig. 5 processor 510);
wherein the one or more processors, in response to the user interface receiving a swipe gesture across a surface of the user interface, ([0010-0011] a user may initiate a user session transfer request by swiping a touch screen interface of a source device when a target device in proximity) prioritize a plurality of companion electronic devices as a function of a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion device is ([0010-0011] when a single directional swipe gesture is input, both target device selection and session transfer are initiated automatically, the target device in the swipe direction presented on the interface is selected among a list of target devices, the user session operation of the application can be transferred to the target device; [0019-0021] the source device has the application in the foreground with a running user session, i.e. zoom conference, where user can initiate a transfer) and automatically cause the communication device to transfer operation of a foreground application operating on the one or more processors to the companion electronic device selected. ([0011, 0019-0023] Fig. 2 shows when the transfer is initiated, i.e. by the single directional swipe, the operation of the foreground application, i.e. zoom video conference, is transferred to the selected target device at step 210-240, where the user can continue the application session, i.e. zoom session).
Although Karuppiah teaches selection of target device among a list of devices to transfer an application session via a directional swipe gesture ([0010-0011]), Karuppiah does not explicitly teach selection of a target device as the most optimized device: “… as a function of a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion device is most optimized to operate a … application to automatically select a companion electronic device from the plurality of companion electronic devices …”.
However, Emmert teaches:
“… as a function of a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion device is most optimized to operate a … application to automatically select a companion electronic device from the plurality of companion electronic devices …; ([0018] Fig. 3 shows a flowchart of a method for an optimized presentation of media, where any media devices (MD) in proximate area identified at step 306, and evaluated for their respective capabilities at step 308, the optimum/most optimized MDs may be determined based on criteria such as screen size, audio quality format compatibility etc. of the MDs at step 310-312, and the determined optimum/optimized MD device is used as the target to transfer media content in step 318).
Emmert and Karuppiah are analogous art because Emmert also teaches a method of selection of a device for presentation of an application content in response to a transfer request of a content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah and Emmert before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah to include teachings of Emmert so that an optimized target device can be selected as a selection criterion to transfer an application operation presenting media content or other type of application. One would be motivated to make this combination to helps to identify an optimally capable media device among proximate media devices to present a media content or transfer an application based on capabilities of the approximate devices (Emmert [0003-0004, 0018, 0022]), and provide additional automatic selection criterion based on capabilities/most optimized device as an alternative option for the users, improving user experiences
Per claim 18, Karuppiah teaches:
A method in an electronic device, the method comprising: (abstract: method of transferring user session between a source device and a target device);
receiving, by a user interface, a swipe gesture instructing one or more processors of the electronic device requesting operation of a foreground application of an application stack be transferred to a companion electronic device operating in an environment of the electronic device; ([0010-0011] a user may initiate a user session transfer request by swiping a touch screen interface of a source device when accessing a foreground application to transfer to a target device in proximity; [0019-0021] the source device has the application in the foreground with a running user session, i.e. zoom conference, where user can initiate a transfer);
automatically selecting, by one or more processors, the companion electronic device from a plurality of companion electronic devices operating in the environment of the electronic device as a function of a selection criterion comprising a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is ([0010-0011, 0019-0021] when a single directional (selection criterion) swipe gesture is determined as selected one of the presented target devices in the same direction on the user interface among a plurality of target devices, the user session operation of the foreground application such as zoom can be transferred to the target device);
in response to the swipe gesture causing, by one or more processors using a communication device, operation of the foreground application of the application stack to be transferred to the companion electronic device selected using the selection criterion without requiring additional input user input to identify the companion electronic device. ([0011, 0019-0023] Fig. 2 shows when the transfer is initiated, the operation of the foreground application, i.e. zoom video conference, is transferred to the target device at step 210-240, where the user can continue the zoom session; at step 250 the original user session at the source device is terminated after the transfer is complete; [0011] where the swipe gesture can be a single directional swipe that both selects target device and initiates session transfer without requiring additional user input).
Although Karuppiah teaches selection of target device among a list of devices to transfer an application session via a directional swipe gesture ([0010-0011]), Karuppiah does not explicitly teach “… comprising a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is most optimized to operate …”.
However, Emmert teaches:
… comprising a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is most optimized to operate … ([0018] Fig. 3 shows a flowchart of a method for an optimized presentation of media, where any media devices (MD) in proximate area identified at step 306, and evaluated for their respective capabilities at step 308, the optimum/optimized MDs may be determined based on criteria such as screen size, audio quality format compatibility etc. of the MDs at step 310-312, and the determined optimum/optimized MD device is used as target to transfer media content to in step 318).
Emmert and Karuppiah are analogous art because Emmert also teaches a method of selection of a device for presentation of an application content in response to a transfer request of a content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah and Emmert before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah to include teachings of Emmert so that an optimized target device can be selected as a selection criterion to transfer an application operation presenting media content or other type of application. One would be motivated to make this combination to helps to identify an optimally capable media device among proximate media devices to present a media content or transfer an application based on capabilities of the approximate devices (Emmert [0003-0004, 0018, 0022]), and provide additional automatic selection criterion based on capabilities/most optimized device as an alternative option for the users, improving user experiences
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Emmert, and Wang et al. (US Pub 20230408676, hereinafter Wang).
Per claim 2, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Karuppiah further teaches a predefined proximity of the target device from the source device ([0021]), but they do not explicitly teach both proximity and orientation of the source device relative to the companion device “wherein the at least one predefined criterion further comprises a proximity to, and orientation of the electronic device in three-dimensional space relative to, the companion electronic device”.
However, Wang teaches:
wherein the at least one predefined criterion further comprises a proximity to, and orientation of the electronic device in three-dimensional space relative to, the companion electronic device. (abstract: method transmitting a command through gestures from a first device to a second device; [0096] determination of where to transmit the command corresponding to a gesture may be determined based on the distance and orientation of the first device’s transceiver 114 to the second system’s transceivers 812, 814; thus the predefined criterion include both proximity and orientation of the source device relative to the target device/system).
Wang and Karuppiah-Emmert are analogous art because Wang also teaches a method of transmitting data between devices using gestures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert and Wang before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert to include teachings of Wang so that proximity and orientation of the source device relative to the plurality of target devices can be used to determine the target. One would be motivated to make this combination to improve accuracy in identifying a target device among a plurality of devices for the gesture based on additional information obtained through UWB (ultra-wideband) signals such as both proximity and orientation (Wang [0035]), improving user experiences.
Per claim 3, Karuppiah-Emmert-Wang teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the proximity is determined using an ultra-wide band ranging process. (Wang: [0035] ultra-wide band (UWB) signals are used to identify relative position/proximity and orientation of devices with each other).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Emmert, Wang, and Sriram et al. (US Pub 20250324390, provisional application 63/634842 with priority date 4/16/2024, hereinafter Sriram).
Per claim 4, Karuppiah-Emmert-Wang teach all the limitations of claim 2, but they do not teach “wherein the proximity is determined using a Bluetooth channel sounding process”.
However, Sriram teaches:
wherein the proximity is determined using a Bluetooth channel sounding process. ([0091] Bluetooth channel sounding process may be used for tracking and measuring proximity between the beacon device and receiver device to estimate their location; provisional application 63/634842 [0087] Bluetooth channel sounding may be used for tracking by measuring the signal strength between devices).
Sriram and Karuppiah-Emmert-Wang are analogous art because Sriram also teaches a method of location estimate using wireless technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert-Wang and Sriram before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert-Wang to include teachings of Sriram so that proximity/distance/location can be measure via newer technology such as Bluetooth channel sounding process. One would be motivated to make this combination to help devices to adapt to changing environmental conditions, optimize communication reliability and data through, and improve overall performance and robustness of Bluetooth connections (Sriram [0109]), it would also provide an alternative method to locate and track devices that may not have UWB signals capabilities, improving user experiences.
Claim(s) 10-11, 14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view Emmert, and Coffman et al. (US Pub 20210392223, hereinafter Coffman).
Per claim 10, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises a usage history of the application”.
However, Coffman teaches:
wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises a usage history of the application. ([0514, 0518] Fig. 12B: Fig. 12B shows a media application information interface displaying usage history of content recently played on nearby devices – kitchen speaker, or by the source device 1200 itself; also see Fig. 12D-12E, 12I and associated paragraphs).
Coffman and Karuppiah-Emmert are analogous art because Coffman also teaches a method of transferring operations to nearby devices through gestures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert to include teachings of Coffman so that past application history of transfer operation can be displayed for user selection or used as automatic criterion for application transfer. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide additional alternative way of predefined criteria for selecting a device to transfer the application operation; it additionally may help users to view past history of content/operation transfer to provide additional information/selections to the users, to help the users to make informed decisions on the operation transfer, improving user experiences.
Per claim 11, Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman teach all the limitations of claim 10, and they further teach:
wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises “wherein the usage history is defined by a selected companion electronic device to which the operation of the application has been transferred from the electronic device in the past. (Coffman [0514-0518] user can view a history of the media content operation transfer on nearly devices such as a kitchen speaker, shown in Fig. 12B-12E).
Per claim 14, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach: “also receiving, by the user interface after the transferring, a predefined gesture; recalling, by the one or more processors using the communication device in response to the predefined gesture, the operation of the application from the companion electronic device; and resuming, by the one or more processors, the operation of the application on the one or more processors of the electronic device“.
However, Coffman teaches:
also receiving, by the user interface after the transferring, a predefined gesture; ([0548, 0581] when it’s detected the first/source device 1200, i.e. iPhone, shown in Fig. 12Y is not playing the media item, and a second device 1202, i.e. kitchen speaker ([0514]), is playing the media item, the media interface displays a predefined gesture affordance 1242C);
recalling, by the one or more processors using the communication device in response to the predefined gesture, the operation of the application from the companion electronic device; and ([0548-0549, 0551], when the user perform the pull down gesture as shown in Fig. 12Z-12AA, the media is “pulled’ back to the current device from the external device 1202);
resuming, by the one or more processors, the operation of the application on the one or more processors of the electronic device. ([0551] the pull gesture pulls back the media playing on external device 1202, start the playback on the current device 1200/iPhone, and stop the playback on the external device 1202/kitchen speaker).
Coffman and Karuppiah-Emmert are analogous art because Coffman also teaches a method of transferring operations to nearby devices through gestures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert to include teachings of Coffman so that a previous operation transfer can be reversed by performing gesture on the current source device. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable user to perform another predefined gesture to reverse the transfer of operation back to the current device, without having to utilizing control from the target device, providing convenience to the users and improving user experiences.
Per claim 16, claim 16 include limitations that are broader but similar to claim 14, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 17, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitations of claim 15, but they do not explicitly teach: “wherein the one or more processors cause an animation of a graphical user interface of the foreground application to move on the user interface while the communication device transfers the operation of the foreground application operating on the one or more processors to the companion electronic device selected”.
However, Coffman teaches:
wherein the one or more processors cause an animation of a graphical user interface of the foreground application to move on the user interface while the communication device transfers the operation of the foreground application operating on the one or more processors to the companion electronic device selected ([0549-0551] Fig. 12Z-12AA shows when the user drag the proximity card from top to bottom as animation while the transfer of the operation happens from the external device 1202 back to the local device 1200; also see Fig. 12AB for progress indicator 1242E ).
Coffman and Karuppiah-Emmert are analogous art because Coffman also teaches a method of transferring operations to nearby devices through gestures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert to include teachings of Coffman so that a previous operation transfer can be reversed by performing gesture on the current source device with animation on the interface to indicate progress. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable user to perform another predefined gesture to reverse the transfer of operation back to the current device, without having to utilizing control from the target device, providing visual feedback for progress, and convenience to the users and improving user experiences.
Per claim 19, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitations of claim 18, but they do not explicitly teach “wherein the selection criterion further comprises one of: proximity to, and orientation of the electronic device relative to, the companion electronic device; which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is optimized to operate the foreground application; or a transfer history of the foreground application from the electronic device“.
However, Coffman teaches:
wherein the selection criterion further comprises one of:
proximity to, and orientation of the electronic device relative to, the companion electronic device; or
a transfer history of the foreground application from the electronic device. ([0514, 0518] Fig. 12B: Fig. 12B shows a media application information interface displaying usage history of content recently played on nearby devices – kitchen speaker, or by the source device 1200 itself; also see Fig. 12D-12E, 12I and associated paragraphs).
Coffman and Karuppiah-Emmert are analogous art because Coffman also teaches a method of transferring operations to nearby devices through gestures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert to include teachings of Coffman so that past history of operation transfer can be displayed for user selection. One would be motivated to make this combination to help users to view past history of content/operation transfer to provide additional information/selections to the users, to help the users to make informed decisions on the operation transfer, improving user experiences.
Per claim 20, Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman teach all the limitations of claim 19, and they further teach:
animating, by the one or more processors, movement of a graphical user interface of the foreground application out of the application stack during the causing; and (Karuppiah [0021-0023] the transferred application is terminated at step 250 from Fig. 2, moving the interface of the terminated application out of the view; Coffman [0549-0551] Fig. 12Z-12AA show animation of the transfer gesture with progress indicator 1242E);
surfacing, by the one or more processors, operation of a penultimate application of the application stack as a new foreground application after the causing. (Karuppiah [0021-0023]: Fig. 2 shows after the application user session has been successfully transferred to the target device, the existing user session on the source device is terminated along with graphical interface at step 250, it’s obvious after foreground app terminate, the next layer of application interface, such as desktop, would appear).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Emmert, Coffman, and Sharma (US Pub 20180324473, hereinafter Sharma).
Per claim 12, Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman teach all the limitations of claim 11, but they do not teach “wherein the usage history is further defined by a time of day at which the operation of the application was transferred from the electronic device to the selected companion electronic device in the past “.
However, Sharma further teaches:
wherein the usage history is further defined by a time of day at which the operation of the application was transferred from the electronic device to the selected companion electronic device in the past. ([0046] a set of particular content item may be transmitted to television receiver on a periodic or scheduled basis, so the television receiver is transmitted the particular content item based on the detected pattern of past viewing at certain times and certain days).
Sharma and Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman are analogous art because Sharma also teaches a method of transferring contents to remote devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention, having the teachings of Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman and Sharma before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-Emmert-Coffman to include teachings of Sharma so that past pattern of history of operation can be used to select devices to transfer operation to. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable target device selection through past usage patterns, and provide users with possible targets based on the past usage patterns to help the users to make decisions on the operation transfer, improving user experiences.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
