DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in response to communication(s):
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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Per claim 1, claim 1 recites “… transferring, by one of more processors using a communication device …” (emphasis added), where the one or more processors is already mentioned previously, and limitation should be “… transferring, by the one of more processors using a communication device …”.
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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karuppiah et al. (US Pub 20220210231, hereinafter Karuppiah).
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 manually 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));
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; and ([0010-0011] a plurality of target device may be presented via the interface for selection to initiate the user session transfer, a swipe input selecting one of the presented target device (predefined criterion) can initiate the user session transfer);
transferring, by 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, 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).
Per claim 13, Karuppiah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the application operating on the one or more processors comprises a foreground application operating on an application stack, ([0010-0011, 0019-0021] the source device has the applicant 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. ([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 manually 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 at least one predefined criterion to select a companion electronic device from the plurality of companion electronic devices ([0010-0011, 0021] when the swipe gesture select one of the presented target devices on the interface where a list of target devices are presented that are within predefined proximity to the source device (prioritize as a function of selection criterion), the user session operation of the application can be transferred to the target device) and 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, 0021-0023] Fig. 2 shows when the transfer is initiated, 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).
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 manually by swiping a touch screen interface of a source device when accessing a foreground application to a target device in proximity (companion device in an environment of the electronic device));
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; and ([0010-0011, 0021] when the swipe gesture select one of the presented target devices on the interface where the target devices presented are within predefined proximity to the source device (selection criterion), the user session operation of the application 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. ([0011, 0021-0023] Fig. 2 shows when the transfer is initiated, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Wang et al. (US Pub 20230408676, hereinafter Wang).
Per claim 2, Karuppiah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a predefined proximity of the target device from the source device ([0021]), but Karuppiah does not explicitly teach both proximity and orientation of the source device relative to the companion device “wherein the at least one predefined criterion 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 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 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 and Wang before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah 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 ([0035]), improving user experiences.
Per claim 3, Karuppiah-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(a) as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Wang, and Sriram et al. (US Pub 20250324390, hereinafter Sriram).
Per claim 4, Karuppiah-Wang teaches 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).
Sriram and Karuppiah-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-Wang and Sriram before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah-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 improve accuracy in tracking movement and locations of various device via different available technologies such as newer Bluetooth channel sounding process, along with existing technologies, to improve accuracy of identifying different device’s location/proximity to the source target ([0088]), improving user experiences.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Emmert et al. (US Pub 20080235599, hereinafter Emmert).
Per claim 5, Karuppiah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but Karuppiah does not explicitly teach: “wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is most optimized to operate the application“.
However, Emmert teaches:
wherein the at least one predefined criterion comprises a determination of which companion electronic device of the plurality of companion electronic devices is most optimized to operate the application. ([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 MDs may be determined based on criteria such as screen size, audio quality format compatibility etc. of the MDs at step 310-312).
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 automatically selected to transfer the application operation. One would be motivated to make this combination to help to identify optimum capable media devices among proximate media devices to present a media content to be transferred to (Emmert [0003-0004]), improving user experiences.
Per claim 6, Karuppiah-Emmert teach all the limitation of claim 5, 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 5, 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 5, 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 5, 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).
Claim(s) 10-11, 14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view Coffman et al. (US Pub 20210392223, hereinafter Coffman).
Per claim 10, Karuppiah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but Karuppiah does 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 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 and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah 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 11, Karuppiah-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. ([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 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but Karuppiah does 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 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 and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah 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 teaches all the limitations of claim 15, but Karuppiah does 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 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 and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah 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 teaches all the limitations of claim 18, but Karuppiah does not explicitly teach “wherein the selection criterion 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 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. ([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 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 and Coffman before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah 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-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(a) as being unpatentable over Karuppiah, in view of Coffman, and Sharma (US Pub 20180324473, hereinafter Sharma).
Per claim 12, Karuppiah-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-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 and Sharma before him/her, to modify the teachings of the Karuppiah 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
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
Prosecution Insights