DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application 18/666,220 filed on 05/16/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 05/16/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024 and 01/29/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 11 and 20 of U. S. Patent No. 12019838 (hereinafter 838’) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant Application 18/666,220
Patent 838’
Claim 1:
A method of interfacing an augmented reality (AR) device to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, comprising:
+ receiving IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device;
+ determining from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device, the predetermined AR user interface widget converting user inputs to the AR device into the at least one device input for the IoT device; and
+ providing the predetermined AR user interface widget to the AR device as an overlay on a display of the AR device for selection by a user.
Claim 9:
An augmented reality (AR) device that interfaces to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, the AR device comprising:
+ a display;
+ a user input device;
+ a registration module that receives IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device;
+ an AR widget user interface that determines from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device, the predetermined AR user interface widget for the IoT device being provided to the AR device as an overlay on the display; and
+ a communication module that provides to the IoT device the at least one device input converted from user input to the user input device.
Claim 17:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to interface an augmented reality (AR) device to an Internet of Things (IoT) device by performing operations including:
+ receiving IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device;
+ determining from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device, the predetermined AR user interface widget converting user inputs to the AR device into the at least one device input for the IoT device; and
+ providing the predetermined AR user interface widget to the AR device as an overlay on a display of the AR device for selection by a user.
Claim 1:
A method of interfacing an augmented reality (AR) device to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, comprising:
+ receiving IoT device information in a standardized schema, the IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device;
+ determining from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device, the predetermined AR user interface widget converting user inputs to the AR device into the at least one device input for the IoT device in the form of at least one of a Boolean, a ranged numeric value, a two-dimensional relative value, a two-dimensional absolute value, a two-dimensional path, a three-dimensional path, a red, green, blue (RGB) color input, a time, or a text in accordance with a form of the IoT device input of the IoT device;
+ receiving a selection of the IoT device;
+ providing the predetermined AR user interface widget for the selected IoT device to the AR device as an overlay on a display of the AR device;
+ in response to user interaction with the predetermined AR user interface widget displayed by the AR device, receiving the at least one device input for the IoT device; and providing the at least one device input to the IoT device.
Claim 11:
An augmented reality (AR) device that interfaces to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, the AR device comprising:
+ a display;
+ a user input device;
+ a registration module that receives IoT device information in a standardized schema, the IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device;
+ an AR widget user interface that determines from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device, the predetermined AR user interface widget for the IoT device being provided to the AR device as an overlay on the display, the predetermined AR user interface widget being adapted to convert user inputs from the user input device into the at least one device input for the IoT device in the form of at least one of a Boolean, a ranged numeric value, a two-dimensional relative value, a two-dimensional absolute value, a two-dimensional path, a three-dimensional path, a red, green, blue (RGB) color input, a time, or a text in accordance with a form of the IoT device input of the IoT device; and
+ a communication module that provides to the IoT device the at least one device input converted from user input to the user input device.
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to interface an augmented reality (AR) device to an Internet of Things (IoT) device by performing operations including:
+ receiving IoT device information in a standardized schema, the IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device;
+ determining from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device, the predetermined AR user interface widget converting user inputs to the AR device into the at least one device input for the IoT device in the form of at least one of a Boolean, a ranged numeric value, a two-dimensional relative value, a two-dimensional absolute value, a two-dimensional path, a three-dimensional path, a red, green, blue (RGB) color input, a time, or a text in accordance with a form of the IoT device input of the IoT device;
+ receiving a selection of the IoT device;
+ providing the predetermined AR user interface widget for the selected IoT device to the AR device as an overlay on a display of the AR device in response to user interaction with the predetermined AR user interface widget displayed by the AR device,
+ receiving the at least one device input for the IoT device; and
+ providing the at least one device input to the IoT device.
As can be seen from the table above, independent Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 1 of 838’, in that Claim 1 of 838’ contains all the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claims 9 and 17 are similarly mapped to claims 11 and 20, respectively of 838’ as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a registration module … ” and “ a communication module ….” in claims 9-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 2020/0267221), published on August 20, 2020 in view of Rochford et al. (“Rochford,” US 2018/0196522), published on July 12, 2018 and further in view of Ravasz et al. (“Ravasz,” US 2020/0387287), published on December 20, 2020.
Regarding claim 1: Yuan teaches a method of interfacing an augmented reality (AR) device to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, comprising:
receiving IoT device information representing at least one device input and available output information for the IoT device (Yuan: ¶0026; in response to receiving a signal from IoT device, control device 120 can obtain a device ID from within the signal. Type of device can be determined based on the device ID. A type of device with device ID can be determined based at least in part on the device ID, and data corresponding to the device can be obtained based at least in part on the type of device. For example, characteristics or configuration settings for the device can be obtained based at least in part on the type of device. ¶0027; the device ID serves as a basic to look up the interface data which can be parsed by the control device, and the interface data can serve as a basis to obtain various UI controls (e.g., UI controls by which the IoT device can be controlled). A control interface for the IoT device is displayed based at least in part on the UI controls for the IoT device);
determining from the received IoT device information a predetermined AR user interface widget to render for the IoT device (Yuan: ¶0031; IoT device 220 communicates data to terminal 210. In response to receiving the data from IoT device 220, device ID corresponding to IoT device 220 can be obtained. The mobile terminal uses the device ID in connection with obtaining the interface data corresponding to the air-conditioning device. The mobile terminal provide a control interface to a user based at least in part on the interface data. The mobile terminal parses the interface data and displays the corresponding control interface. ¶0018; a terminal can be a head-mounted device “HMD”), the predetermined AR user interface widget converting user inputs to the AR device into the at least one device input for the IoT device (Yuan: ¶0031-0032; the IoT device 220 can be controlled based at least in part on inputs to the control interface); and
providing the predetermined AR user interface widget to the AR device [as an overlay] on a display of the AR device for selection by a user (Yuan: ¶0032; as illustrated in Fig. 2, terminal 210 provides control interface 212 which the user can use to adjust the air-conditioning temperature, fan speed, mode, switch on/off).
If Yuan is not interpreted that the user interface widget is the AR user interface widget, Rochford teaches augmented reality control of Internet of things device; wherein the user interface widget is the AR user interface widget (Rochford: ¶0054-0055 and Fig. 4A; electronic device 300 may be a pair of augmented reality glasses or an HMD with an integrated display and component. ¶0005; an electronic device generates a user interface associated with a device for display on the electronic device based on information received about the device, detecting an input on the UI, and transmitting a signal to the device to control the device based on the detected input. ¶0060; as shown in Fig. 4B, an AR view 460 includes a 3D model 462 of the IoT device 200 and a virtual control panel 454 ¶0060; the electronic device 300 displays the virtual control panel 464 adjacent to the 3D model 462 of the IoT device 200 so that a user may intuitively associate the virtual control panel 464 as shown in Fig. 4B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Rochford and Yuan in front of them to incorporate the method for presenting an augmented reality display on a remote device to control a device as taught by Rochford with the system for controlling an internet of things device as taught by Yuan to provide a user friendly interface for controlling IoT devices in an augmented reality display (Rochford: ¶0001-0003).
Yuan and Rochford do not explicitly teach: providing the predetermined AR user interface widget to the AR device as an overlay on a display of the AR device for selection by a user.
However Ravasz teaches a method for detecting input in artificial reality system. Ravasz also teaches: providing the predetermined AR user interface widget to the AR device as an overlay on a display of the AR device for selection by a user (Ravasz: ¶0010, 0012; generating a UI input element in response to identifying the gesture and rendering the UI input element as an overlay to at least some of the artificial reality content. ¶0039; in response to detecting one or more particular gestures, generates one or more user interface elements, e.g., UI menu 124 and UI element 126, which may be overlaid on underlying artificial reality content 122 being presented to the user).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ravasz, Yuan and Rochford in front of them to incorporate the method for generating UI input element as overlays as taught by Ravasz with the system for controlling an internet of things device as taught by Yuan to provide a high-quality artificial reality experience to a user by generating and rendering user interface elements overlaid on the artificial reality content based on detection of intuitive, yet distinctive, gestures performed by the user (Ravasz: ¶0049).
Regarding claim 2: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 1,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz further teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget converts user inputs to the AR device into the at least one device input for the IoT device in the form of at least one of a Boolean, a ranged numeric value, a two-dimensional relative value, a two-dimensional absolute value, a two-dimensional path, a three-dimensional path, a red, green, blue (RGB) color input, a time, or a text in accordance with a form of the IoT device input of the IoT device (Yuan: ¶0032 and Fig. 2; a user can interact with the control element 216 to adjust the temperature setting of IoT device 200. Rochford: ¶0074; the user can set their preferences, e.g., what A/C temp they want and during which time periods), further comprising receiving a selection of the IoT device (Rochford: ¶0074; when a smart IoT device is found within the electronic device 300 field of view, an overlay highlights the found smart IoT device. If the user selects that device the associated virtual control panel will be shown on the display of the electronic device 300) and providing the predetermined AR user interface widget for the selected IoT device to the AR device as the overlay on the display of the AR device for selection by the user (Rochford: ¶0074; when a smart IoT device is found within the electronic device 300 field of view, an overlay highlights the found smart IoT device. If the user selects that device the associated virtual control panel will be shown on the display of the electronic device 300).
Regarding claim 3: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 2,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz further teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget comprises a momentary or selectable state switch and the Boolean represents a true/false value sent to the IoT device in response to a user’s hand or finger crossing a threshold of a two-dimensional plane, crossing into an interior of a three-dimensional volume, an instantaneous value, a true/false value, or a toggle between states of a spatial gesture classification (Ravasz: ¶0098 and Fig. 7B; U:I pinch element 562 has been positioned by hand 132 so that UI string element 564 intersects switch position 624, and not switch position 623, thereby corresponding to a toggle of switch UI element 622. Yuan: ¶0032; a user can interact with control element 218 to adjust the setting of the fan speed of IoT device 220. Control interface 212 can include various other control elements. A control element provided on a control interface is a button, a radial button, a check box, or a slider bar, radial dial. Accordingly, the user can user the control interface 212 to adjust the air-conditioning temperature, fan speed, mode, switch on/off).
Regarding claim 4: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 1,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz further teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget comprises a selectable range of numbers having a lower limit and an upper limit and a selection granularity whereby an interval between one selectable value and a previous selectable value or a next selectable value is selectable by movement of a slider along a numbered scale, a numbered dial, or a property or an interpretation of a spatial gesture (Yuan: ¶0032; a user can interact with the control element 218 to adjust the setting of the fan speed of IoT device 220. A control element provided on a control interface is a button, a radial button, a check box, or a slide bar, radial dial. Various control elements can be implemented on control interface 212).
Regarding claim 6: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 1,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz further teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget comprises a two-dimensional absolute position input widget that maps a two-dimensional value from a user input coordinate system to a coordinate system used by the IoT device whereby coordinates selected by a user in the user interface are recognized by the user’s AR device as a device input that is mapped from user interface coordinates to real-world coordinates that are provided to the IoT device (Yuan: ¶0032; a user can interact with control element 218 to adjust the setting of the fan speed of IoT device 220. Control interface 212 can include various other control elements. A control element provided on a control interface is a button, a radial button, a check box, or a slider bar, radial dial. Accordingly, the user can user the control interface 212 to adjust the air-conditioning temperature, fan speed, mode, switch on/off).
Regarding claim 7: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 1,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz further teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget receives a sequence of two-dimensional coordinates that are input by dragging a path across a plane or by using at least one ray intersection on the plane or by using a spatial gesture or a sequence of three-dimensional coordinates that are input by dragging proxy objects in a three-dimensional volume or by three-dimensional gestures that designate a desired path (Ravasz: ¶0088 and Fig. 6B ; slider UI element 612 is presented in response to the pinch and pull gesture detected by gesture detector. The input value represented by the one-dimensional slider UI element 612 is adjusted by a distance corresponding to movement of hand 132. The input value represented by one-dimensional slider UI element 612 may correspond to input for an audio volume control, input for a visual zoom value, or any other input that might be represented by a one-dimensional continuous variables).
Regarding claim 8: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 1,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz further teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget comprises a color picker widget that allows a user to select a specific color as an input using a hand gesture (Ravasz: ¶0103 and Fig. 8C; user interface engine 428 may translate movements of hand 132 into different positions within the continuum of values within color picker UI element 652, where the position is determined by the intersection of UI string element 564 and color picker UI element 652. A user may select one of the points within the spectrum included within color picker UI element 652 by terminating the pinch and pull gesture).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 14-16: claims 9-12 and 14-16 are directed to an augmented reality (AR) device (Yuan: see Fig. 1; control device 120. Rochford: ¶0054 and Fig. 4A; HMD 400) that interfaces to an Internet of Things (IoT) device (Yuan: see Fig. 1; IoT device 110) for executing the method as claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-8, respectively; Claim 9-12 and 14-16 are similar scope to claims 1-4 and 6-8, respectively and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-19: claims 17-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium for executing the method as claimed in claims 1-4, respectively; Claim 17-19 are similar scope to claims 1-4, respectively and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Martin et al. (“Martin,” US 2021/0208698), published on August 20, 2020.
Regarding claim 5: Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz teach the method of claim 1,
Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz do not explicitly teach: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget comprises a relative two-dimensional input widget that measures a difference of an input value from a set center point or starting value and is responsive to a relative two-dimensional input in the form of a drag gesture, a mapping of a movement speed and direction at a crossing of a movement speed threshold, or an untethered force-feedback controller or a force transducer and sensor mounted on at least one of a user’s hand or finger.
However Martin teaches a method for interacting with a virtual environment using a pointing controller. Martin further teaches: wherein the predetermined AR user interface widget comprises a relative two-dimensional input widget that measures a difference of an input value from a set center point or starting value and is responsive to a relative two-dimensional input in the form of a drag gesture, a mapping of a movement speed and direction at a crossing of a movement speed threshold, or an untethered force-feedback controller or a force transducer and sensor mounted on at least one of a user’s hand or finger (Martin: ¶0092; the gesture recognition module 406 may capture a force or a time period of the pinching gesture and may take different actions depending on these captured parameters. The swiping gesture may be detected when the user performs a swiping motion on the slider controller interface. Alternatively, the swiping gesture may comprise a radial swiping gesture performed in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction about a reference point in a plane of the slider controller interface. The gesture recognition module may capture a force, a velocity, or a distance of the swiping gesture and take different actions depending on these captured parameters).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Martin, Yuan, Rochford and Ravasz in front of them to incorporate the method for performing different actions depending on captured parameters as taught by Martin with the system for controlling an internet of things device as taught by Yuan to allow a user to quickly modify parameters using a swiping gesture (Martin: ¶0097).
Regarding claim 13: claim 13 is directed to an augmented reality (AR) device (Yuan: see Fig. 1; control device 120. Rochford: ¶0054 and Fig. 4A; HMD 400) that interfaces to an Internet of Things (IoT) device (Yuan: see Fig. 1; IoT device 110) for executing the method as claimed in claim 5; Claim 13 is similar scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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 L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
.
Prosecution Insights