DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 10/17/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites steps of acquiring information and making a decision based on the acquired information. This constitutes a mental process, as these steps can be performed entirely within the human mind. Claim 1 recites additional elements of one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors display the combinations of devices on the display device.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not apply or use the mental processes in a meaningful way, but rather they merely link the use of the mental processes to a generic computing environment. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements only recite elements which, alone or combination, amount to merely that which is routine, conventional, and well-understood generic computing components.
Claim 2 recites an additional mental process of making a decision, and therefore does not recite a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons as Claim 1. Claim 7 likewise recites additional details of the mental process of acquiring information, and also does not recite a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons as Claim 1. Claims 8 and 9 recite a method and non-transitory medium, respectively, which implement the display device of Claim 1, and are also rejected on the same grounds for reciting mental processes without reciting a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 4 recites an additional element of displaying combinations with device images corresponding to the devices on the display device. This does not recite a practical application, as it does not tie the recited mental process to any particular machine or technological area, but rather recites additional, insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element of Claim 4, either alone or in combination with the elements of Claim 1, does not recite significantly more than the mental processes, as the additional elements only amount to that which is routine, conventional, and well-understood in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fineberg, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 9,729,821 (“Fineberg”), in view of Stark, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0248557 (“Stark”).
With regard to Claim 1, Fineberg teaches a display device capable of using a plurality of devices each having at least one of functions of a camera, a microphone, and a speaker, the display device comprising:
one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors acquire determination information including at least any one of communication environment information related to a communication environment of each of the plurality of devices, performance information related to performance of each of the plurality of devices, and usage environment information related to a usage environment of each of the plurality of devices (Col. 15, lines 11-52 describe that a functional grouping module determines functionally grouped devices based on requested capabilities and determined device capabilities on a initiating and receiving side of a conversation. Col. 17, lines 1-46 describe how the system also uses the user identity and device availability at a user location)
decide combinations of the devices of which the functions are to be enabled based on the determination information (Col. 15, lines 28-41 describes that determined devices are grouped together, and enabled for use carrying out the requested function, such as a video call).
Fineberg, in view of Stark teaches that the one or more processors display the combinations of the devices on the display device. Fineberg teaches the determinations of groups of devices, as described above. Stark teaches at [0021] a system which identifies groups of devices for carrying out specific functions, that are located in a particular location, or have particular capabilities. [0049] describes a GUI which has a device group selection tab, which allows a user to select and view the devices of each of a plurality of groups as shown in Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Fineberg to include an interface display of grouped devices as described in Stark. The interfaces described in Stark allow for a user to provide input and control for various groups of devices. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the modification, to improve user experience by giving users who desire such greater control over devices and groupings determined for carrying out a specified task.
Claim 8 recites a method carried out by the display device of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 9 recites a medium recording a program (Fineberg, Fig. 12) that executes to implement the display device of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Fineberg, in view of Stark teaches the one or more processors decide priorities of the combinations based on the determination information, and display the combinations based on the priorities on the display device. Fineberg teaches at Col. 9, lines 50-60 that the system can transfer communications to a different grouping of devices, based on a determination that a user location is more closely related to a second group of devices. Stark teaches at [0021] a system which identifies groups of devices for carrying out specific functions, that are located in a particular location, or have particular capabilities, thereby enabling display of a group that has been activated due to priority related to user location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Fineberg to include an interface display of grouped devices as described in Stark. The interfaces described in Stark allow for a user to provide input and control for various groups of devices. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the modification, to improve user experience by giving users who desire such greater control over devices and groupings determined for carrying out a specified task.
With regard to Claim 3, Stark teaches that the one or more processors set the functions of the devices, to be enabled, in a combination selected by a user from among the combinations of the devices displayed on the display device. [0049] describes that a user can select among a plurality of groups of devices in an interface, where groups have been dynamically determined according to criteria. [0050] describes that a user selects to direct content to a selected group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Fineberg to include an interface display of grouped devices as described in Stark. The interfaces described in Stark allow for a user to provide input and control for various groups of devices. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the modification, to improve user experience by giving users who desire such greater control over devices and groupings determined for carrying out a specified task.
With regard to Claim 6, Fineberg teaches that in a case where the display device is capable of using a first device and a second device both of which have a first function of the functions of the camera, the microphone, and the speaker, and a third device and a fourth device both of which have a second function of the functions of the camera, the microphone, and the speaker, the second function being different from the first function, the one or more processors decide a combination of either one of the first and second devices of which the first function is enabled and either one of the third and fourth devices of which the second function is enabled based on the determination information. Figs. 8A and 8B show that the system selects different groupings of devices, depending on a location of the user. Each grouping can include elements which carry out a same function, including a speaker for playing audio and an imaging device for transmitting video.
With regard to Claim 7, Fineberg teaches that the communication environment information includes information related to a communication band and a communication speed, the performance information includes information related to a resolution of the camera, a sensitivity, frequency band, and directivity of the microphone, and an output level and frequency band of the speaker, and the usage environment information includes information related to a size of a conference room for a conference in which the devices are used, the number and attributes of participants who participate in the conference, and a type of the conference.
Col. 3, line 59 – Col. 4, line 20 describes that output requirements used to determine groups can include supported resolutions for a camera, and the quality of a connection such as is measured by latency. As Claim 1 recites only that any one of the recited information pieces are needed to satisfy the claim, these teachings are adequate to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fineberg, in view of Stark, and in view of Jellinek, U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0096111 (“Jellinek”).
With regard to Claim 4, Stark, in view of Jellinek teaches that the one or more processors display the combinations with device images corresponding to the devices on the display device. Stark shows at Fig. 2 the interface that displays information about device groups. Jellinek teaches at [0030] that an icon for a device can be displayed on a display regarding enablement information about the device, where the exemplary device is a headset comprising a microphone and speaker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Fineberg and Stark to enable the provisioning of icons and other data as described in Jellinek. Jellinek describes various methods for providing information about devices, without requiring the devices themselves to carry and transmit information, particularly for devices which are not well-suited for transmitting icon and other desired information. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve system functioning by enabling easy access to important device data, as well as icons which aid in identifying devices while enabling and provisioning them in interfaces.
With regard to Claim 5, Jellinek teaches that the one or more processors acquire images corresponding to the devices via a network based on identification information of the devices, and display the device images corresponding to the devices in association with the identification information based on the acquired images. [0030] describes that a mobile phone can connect to remote data sources, to access and download an icon corresponding to a connected device using identifying information of the device, such as a headset which includes a microphone and speaker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Fineberg and Stark to enable the provisioning of icons and other data as described in Jellinek. Jellinek describes various methods for providing information about devices, without requiring the devices themselves to carry and transmit information, particularly for devices which are not well-suited for transmitting icon and other desired information. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve system functioning by enabling easy access to important device data, as well as icons which aid in identifying devices while enabling and provisioning them in interfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights