DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed October 8, 2024.
Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 10/08/2024, 11/25/2025, and 03/04/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, lines 7 and 8 contain a repeated word “and.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 22, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni (US 2016/0299779).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni discloses:
initiating a computing process on a wearable device, the computing process including a plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 59, performing a task; paragraph 87, wearable device performs the first task);
identifying a companion device and determining that the companion device is available to perform at least one task of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 87, performing the task includes triggering a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 47, wearable device and companion device can communicate with each other to perform functions such as discovery, implement services involving sensor data, use of internet connectivity, and compute tasks);
causing the companion device to perform the at least one task including communicating data generated by the wearable device to the companion device (see at least paragraph 87, performing the task includes triggering a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 59, wearable device transmits a batch of data to the companion device and requests the companion device to process the batch of data to generate derived data);
receiving, by the wearable device, a result associated with a completion of the at least one task by the companion device (see at least paragraph 59, the wearable device receives the result of the computation task from the companion device); and
completing, by the wearable device, the computing process based on the result associated with the completion of the at least one task (see at least paragraph 59, performing the task includes triggering by the wearable device a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 48, example provided where the wearable can leverage the internet access of a smartphone)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the computing process is initiated by the wearable device (see at least paragraph 59, performing the task includes triggering by the wearable device a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the data is associated with a peripheral device of the wearable device (see at least paragraph 27, wearable device has input part which may include input device such as imaging, gesture sensor, light sensor, microphone and sensors such as GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, moisture, humidity, and pressure sensors; paragraph 47, wearable device and companion device communicate with each other to perform functions such as implement services involving sensor data)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the wearable device includes a first socket, the companion device includes a second socket communicatively coupled to the first socket, causing the companion device to perform the at least one task includes writing an instruction and the data to the first socket, and receiving the result associated with a completion of the at least one task includes reading the result from the second socket (see at least paragraph 27, communication interface includes a communication stack that allows the wearable device to communicate with the companion devices using a low energy communication channel such as NFC or Bluetooth Low Energy; paragraph 57. Examiner’s Note: socket was interpreted as generally the endpoint of a two-way communication link between devices rather than a more specific TCP/IP network socket)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the result includes an image, the method further comprising displaying the image on a display of the wearable device (see at least paragraph 61, the task includes displaying information, output notifications; paragraph 16, wearable devices including glasses)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the wearable device is smart glasses (see at least paragraph 16, wearable devices including glasses)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the companion device is at least one of another wearable device, a mobile device, a smart phone, a tablet, a server, and a device including a processor and an operating system (see at least paragraph 16, companion device such as a smartphone, laptop, tablet, personal computer)
Regarding claim 22, Kulkarni discloses:
determining, by a companion device, that the companion device is available to perform at least one task of a plurality of tasks associated with a computing process (see at least paragraph 87, performing the task includes triggering a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 47, wearable device and companion device can communicate with each other to perform functions such as discovery, implement services involving sensor data, use of internet connectivity, and compute tasks);
receiving, by the companion device from a wearable device, data associated with the computing process generated by the wearable device (see at least paragraph 87, performing the task includes triggering a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 59, wearable device transmits a batch of data to the companion device and requests the companion device to process the batch of data to generate derived data);
performing, by the companion device, the at least one task (see at least paragraph 59, generate a result); and
communicating, by the companion device to the wearable device, a result associated with a completion of the at least one task (see at least paragraph 59, the wearable device receives the result of the computation task from the companion device)
Regarding claims 24 and 26-28, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 3 and 5-7, and they are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 10, 23, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 2016/0299779) in view of Diefenbaugh (US 2020/0104971).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However, Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose, but Diefenbaugh discloses:
wherein the result is a first result, the method further comprising: receiving, by the wearable device, a second result associated with processing of the at least one task by the companion device; processing, by the wearable device, the second result as processed second result; and communicating, by the wearable device to the companion device, the processed second result, wherein the first result is based on the processed second result (see at least paragraph 187, offloading all or portions of operations from the host computer to one or more graphics engines incorporated into a wearable graphics processing apparatus, such as a head mounted display (HMD), in some dynamic situations offloading can perform worse and as such an optimized architecture can dynamically offload/onload processing across host and HMD based on various cues from the overall system; paragraph 188)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni by adapting the teachings of Diefenbaugh to include dynamic offloading and onloading between the host computer and head mounted display. The combination allows improved performance by allowing graphics engines across both the host and HMD to dynamically be used as needed (Diefenbaugh ¶188).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However, Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose, but Diefenbaugh discloses:
wherein the computing process is initiated by the companion device, and initiating the computing process on the wearable device includes receiving a trigger from the companion device, by the wearable device (see at least paragraph 187, offloading all or portions of operations from the host computer to one or more graphics engines incorporated into a wearable graphics processing apparatus, such as a head mounted display (HMD), in some dynamic situations offloading can perform worse and as such an optimized architecture can dynamically offload/onload processing across host and HMD based on various cues from the overall system; paragraph 188)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni by adapting the teachings of Diefenbaugh to include dynamic offloading and onloading between the host computer and head mounted display. The combination allows improved performance by allowing graphics engines across both the host and HMD to dynamically be used as needed (Diefenbaugh ¶188).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
the method further comprising completing, by the wearable device, the computing process based on the result includes rendering an image on a display of the wearable device (see at least paragraph 61, the task includes displaying information, output notifications; paragraph 16, wearable devices including glasses)
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose, but Diefenbaugh discloses:
wherein the companion device includes a virtual runtime environment, causing the companion device to perform the at least one task includes causing the virtual runtime environment to perform the computing process, and the result is the completion of the computing process (see at least paragraphs 146, 157, and 188, discuss the use of virtualization to complete processing tasks)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni by adapting the teachings of Diefenbaugh to include virtualization to complete processing tasks. The combination allows for increased flexibility of efficiency of available resources.
Regarding claims 23 and 25, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 2 and 4, and they are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. However, Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose, but Diefenbaugh discloses:
wherein the companion device includes a virtual runtime environment operating as a background process on the companion device, causing the companion device to perform the at least one task includes causing the virtual runtime environment to perform the plurality of tasks, the result is the completion of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraphs 146, 157, and 188, discuss the use of virtualization to complete processing tasks; design choice of having the virtual runtime environment run in the background which is a known method of operation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni by adapting the teachings of Diefenbaugh to include virtualization to complete processing tasks. The combination allows for increased flexibility of efficiency of available resources.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 2016/0299779) in view of Slaby (US 2014/0341441).
Regarding claim 11, and Kulkarni discloses:
a wearable device; and a companion device (see at least paragraph 47, wearable device and companion device can communicate with each other to perform functions),
the wearable device including: a device client (see at least paragraph 27, communication interfaces can include a communication stack that allows the wearable device to communicate with a companion device), […] and and at least one peripheral device driver (see at least paragraph 27, wearable device has input part which may include input devise such as imaging, gesture sensor, light sensor, microphone and sensors such as GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, moisture, humidity, and pressure sensors; paragraph 47, wearable device and companion device communicate with each other to perform functions such as implement services involving sensor data),
the companion device including a runtime environment associated with the wearable device (see at least paragraph 59, triggering by the wearable device a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result), and
the system configured to: initiate a computing process on the wearable device, the computing process including a plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 59, performing a task; paragraph 87, wearable device performs the first task);
determine that the companion device is available to perform at least one task of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 87, performing the task includes triggering a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 47, wearable device and companion device can communicate with each other to perform functions such as discovery, implement services involving sensor data, use of internet connectivity, and compute tasks);
communicate, by the wearable device, data generated by the wearable device to the companion device; perform, by the companion device, the at least one task (see at least paragraph 87, performing the task includes triggering a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 59, wearable device transmits a batch of data to the companion device and requests the companion device to process the batch of data to generate derived data);
communicate, by the companion device, a result associated with a completion of the at least one task; receive, by the wearable device, the result associated with the completion of the at least one task (see at least paragraph 59, the wearable device receives the result of the computation task from the companion device); and
complete, by the wearable device, the computing process based on the result associated with the completion of the at least one task (see at least paragraph 59, performing the task includes triggering by the wearable device a computation task to be performed using resources of the companion device to generate a result; paragraph 48, example provided where the wearable can leverage the internet access of a smartphone)
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose, but Slaby discloses:
the wearable device including: […] a hardware abstraction layer, an operating system abstraction layer (see at least figure 6; paragraph 49, device 600 can be implemented as any wearable device or companion device; paragraph 54, operating system 616 and hardware abstraction layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni by adapting the teachings of Slaby to include specific components of a wearable device. The combination allows for flexibility is design or operation options for a wearable device.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the companion device is a first companion device and the at least one task is at least one first task, the system further comprising: a second companion device, the system configured to cause the second companion device to perform at least one second task of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 27, the communication interfaces include a communication stack that allows the wearable device to communicate one or more companion devices)
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 20, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 8, 9, and 3, and they are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 2016/0299779), in view of Slaby (US 2014/0341441), and further in view of Guo (Efficient Computation Offloading for Multi-Access Edge Computing in 5G HetNets).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. However, Kulkarni and Slaby do not explicitly disclose, but Guo discloses:
wherein the first companion device and the second companion device are communicatively coupled (see at least abstract, collaborative computation offloading scheme for multiple MEC servers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni and Slaby by adapting the teachings of Guo to include collaborative offloading. The combination allows for reducing the overall computation overhead efficiently (Guo Abstract).
Claims 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 2016/0299779), in view of Slaby (US 2014/0341441), and further in view of Diefenbaugh (US 2020/0104971).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. However, Kulkarni and Slaby do not explicitly disclose, but Diefenbaugh discloses:
wherein the runtime environment is a virtual runtime environment operating as a background process on the companion device (see at least paragraphs 146, 157, and 188, discuss the use of virtualization to complete processing tasks; design choice of having the virtual runtime environment run in the background which is a known method of operation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni and Slaby by adapting the teachings of Diefenbaugh to include virtualization to complete processing tasks. The combination allows for increased flexibility of efficiency of available resources.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the at least one task includes an application, and the at least one task further includes processing an output of the application (see at least paragraph 23, wearable device has a service application which can implement procedures that enables pairing, registration, and communication between the wearable device and companion device)
Regarding claim 18, the scope of the instant claim does not differ substantially from that of claim 7 and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated, and Kulkarni further discloses:
wherein the device client is configured to control communication associated with the application (see at least paragraph 27, communication interfaces can include a communication stack that allows the wearable device to communicate with a companion device)
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. However, Kulkarni and Slaby do not explicitly disclose, but Diefenbaugh discloses:
wherein the computing process is initiated by the companion device (see at least paragraph 187, offloading all or portions of operations from the host computer to one or more graphics engines incorporated into a wearable graphics processing apparatus, such as a head mounted display (HMD), in some dynamic situations offloading can perform worse and as such an optimized architecture can dynamically offload/onload processing across host and HMD based on various cues from the overall system; paragraph 188)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni and Slaby by adapting the teachings of Diefenbaugh to include dynamic offloading and onloading between the host computer and head mounted display. The combination allows improved performance by allowing graphics engines across both the host and HMD to dynamically be used as needed (Diefenbaugh ¶188).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights