DETAILED ACTION
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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled.
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, 3-6, 8, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuderi et al. (US 2024/0402842 A1), in view of Murillo, Jr. et al. (US 9628424 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Scuderi teaches a method comprising:
determining a screen state of a display of a first device satisfies at least on criterion associated with a first device (see first device/touchscreen display system 1 of FIG. 1 and corresponding paragraphs; FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0128-0136]: a screen state is identified for the first device. As supported in [0131], “When the user 10 is actively providing touch input 9 that is sensed at the touch panel sensor 7, the at least one processor 16 in a first mode is configured to generate 130 the pointing device input signal 19 that further includes an active screen notification.” The underlined portion corresponds to at least one criterion; [0122-0123]: the at least one criterion may also include determining if the touch input is not a group touch corresponding to a palm);
in response to determining that the screen state satisfies the at least one criterion, identifying touch input for a second device at the first device (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0131]: “When the user 10 is actively providing touch input 9 that is sensed at the touch panel sensor 7, the at least one processor 16 in a first mode is configured to generate 130 the pointing device input signal 19 that further includes an active screen notification.” The underlined portion corresponds to at least one criterion. Accordingly, touch input for a second device/host device 15 is identified at the first device; For more details regarding the second device, see host device 15 of FIG. 1 and [0088-0093]); and
in response to determining that the screen state fails to satisfy the at least one criterion, identifying touch input for the first device at the first device ([0122-0123]: the screen state fails to satisfy the at least one criterion, thereby identifying the touch input of a group touch for the first device at the first device and not at the second device).
Although Scuder teaches wherein the screen state includes an indication of whether a screen on the first device is in an active state or an inactive state (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0128-0136]: see instances for an active screen notification versus inactive screen notification as it pertains to a screen on the first device), Scuderi does not explicitly teach wherein the screen state indicates whether the display is actively presenting content or is not actively presenting content.
Murillo teaches wherein the screen state indicates whether the display is actively presenting content or is not actively presenting content (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 18-67; Claims 1 and 11: the screen state indicates that the display is active or inactive, with the inactive/sleep state indicative of not actively presenting content. When the screen state of the first device is inactive, activity originally intended for the first device is pushed to a second device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scuderi by incorporating the teachings of Murillo so as to include wherein the screen state indicates whether the display is actively presenting content or is not actively presenting content. Doing so would tie the input activity of Scuderi to activity of the display so as to prevent user confusion where input is directed to.
Regarding claim 3, Scuderi further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the screen state includes an indication of whether an application is open for display on the first device ([0118-0121]: note how the same gesture can provide different results depending on which application is running in the foreground. Thus, the screen state includes an indication of whether an application is open for display on the first device).
Regarding claim 4, Scuderi further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: identifying a notification (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0128-0136]: see instances for an active screen notification versus inactive screen notification as it pertains to a screen on the first device);
in response to determining that the screen state satisfies the at least one criterion, causing display of the notification on the second device (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0128-0136] and [0113-0117]: in response to satisfying the at least one criterion, display of the notification on the second device occurs via input signals 19. For example, the second device’s display is updated in accordance with the input signals 19 signifying satisfaction of the at least one criterion); and
in response to determining that the screen state fails to satisfy the at least one criterion, causing display of the notification on the first device (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0128-0136] and [0122-0123]: for example, a palm rejection prevents unintended movement of cursor at location 21, thus the cursor is maintained at this location on the first device).
Regarding claim 5, Scuderi further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
identifying a first touch input on the first device;
wherein determining whether the screen state satisfies the at least one criterion comprises determining whether the screen state and the first touch input satisfies the at least one criterion (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0131]: “When the user 10 is actively providing touch input 9 that is sensed at the touch panel sensor 7, the at least one processor 16 in a first mode is configured to generate 130 the pointing device input signal 19 that further includes an active screen notification.” The underlined portion corresponds to at least one criterion with respect to a first touch input; [0122-0123]: the at least one criterion may also include determining if the touch input is not a group touch corresponding to a palm).
Regarding claim 6, Scuderi further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the at least one criterion includes the first touch input being unrelated to content displayed on the first device (FIGS. 2 and 8 and [0128-0136]: for example, the first touch input relates to movement of a cursor, not content displayed on the first device).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-13, the claims recite a computing system comprising: a computer-readable storage medium; at least one processor operatively coupled to the computer-readable storage medium; and program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium that (see FIG. 1 and corresponding paragraphs), when executed by the at least one processor, direct the at least one processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1 and 3-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, the claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute operations (see FIG. 1 and corresponding paragraphs), the operations comprising those corresponding to the method of claims 1 and 3-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claims 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuderi et al. (US 2024/0402842 A1), in view of Murillo, Jr. et al. (US 9628424 B2), in view of Yardi et al. (US 2023/0273669 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Scuderi in view of Murillo teaches the method of claim 1. Scuderi does not explicitly teach wherein the second device comprises an extended reality device, and wherein the first device comprises a companion device.
Yardi teaches wherein the second device comprises an extended reality device, and wherein the first device comprises a companion device (extended reality device/HMD 112 and peripheral device 136/companion device of FIGS. 1A and 2 and [0030-0043], and [0054-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scuderi in view of Murillo by incorporating the teachings of Yardi so as to include wherein the second device comprises an extended reality device, and wherein the first device comprises a companion device. Doing so would provide a more immersive and seamless user interaction experience across the first and second devices. Yardi sets forth, “The hierarchical power management divides roles between system-level power management and subsystem-level power management subsystem to provides specific, component-level power management decisions (e.g., via the child EPUs) while maintaining a coordinated power management scheme (e.g., via the parent EPU). The child EPU, in coordination with local subsystem microprocessors defining different subsystem power states, provide for more fine-grained power management decisions than a central power management scheme. This facilitates lower latency control of the power domains. This also facilitates greater modularity between different designs of a particular subsystem. The parent EPU, in coordination with a system-level microprocessor defining different power states of the system, provides operational management and power management for system level components.”
Claim 14 recites a computing system corresponding to the method of claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights