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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant has cited information disclosure statement(s) (IDS's) that include numerous Patents/PG Pubs/NPL. In accord with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find "a needle in a haystack" is "probative of bad faith." Id. [The Molins] case presented a situation where the disclosure was in excess of 700 pages and contained more than 50 references. Likewise, the instant application's combined IDS's also include more than 50 references. According to MPEP Section 2004 "Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]", "It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance." See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974), Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It should be noted that the Examiner having to consider these many references without identifying statements as to their respective applicability to the patentability of each of the instant application's claims does not properly enable the Examiner to review them with significant depth. The IDS's have been placed in the application file and marked as considered, but the information referred to therein has only been given a cursory review. Examiner formally requests that if any information previously cited by Applicant in the IDS's is known to be truly material for patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, Applicant should present a new IDS outlining them and inclusive of a concise but detailed statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited under 37 CFR § 1.105.
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 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosener (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0244812).
Regarding claim 1, Rosener teaches a head-wearable device (Figs. 1 item 102, Fig. 2 item 202, Fig. 4 item 400, Fig. 6 item 600, Fig. 7 item 700, Fig. 9 item 901, Fig. 10 item 1002, Figs. 12A-12B item 1202), comprising:
a speaker (Paragraphs 0032, 0034); one or more processors; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the head-wearable device (Paragraphs 0046-0047) to:
while an electronic device (Figs. 1-2 item 101, Fig. 8 item 805, Fig. 9 item 903, Fig. 10 item 1001, Figs. 12A-12B item 1201) that is associated with a user of the head-wearable device is in proximity to the head-wearable device and the electronic device is presenting audio data:
in accordance with a determination that sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that at least one precondition for presenting audio data is present at the head-wearable device (Don/ Donned state):
cease to cause presentation of the audio data at the electronic device (stop presenting audio at mobile phone), and
cause presentation of the audio data at the speaker of the head-wearable device (present audio at the headset); and
in accordance with a determination that the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is no longer present at the head-wearable device (Doff/ Doffed state):
cease to cause presentation of the audio data at the head-wearable device (stop presenting audio at the headset), and
cause presentation of the audio data at the electronic device (present audio at the mobile phone) (Paragraphs 0030, 0034-0035, 0038-0039, 0048-0051, 0053-0056, 0064).
Regarding claim 2, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is determined to be present at the head-wearable device when the head-wearable device is worn by the user (Paragraphs 0032, 0043 Don/ Donned state).
Regarding claim 3, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is determined to no longer be present at the head-wearable device when the head-wearable device is no longer worn by the user (Paragraph 0032 Doff/ Doffed state).
Regarding claim 4, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data includes one or more of a predetermined electronic device position (Paragraphs 0058-0062 near head or not near head) or a predetermined head-worn wearable device position (Paragraphs 0032, 0043 Don/ Donned/ Doff/ Doffed state).
Regarding claim 5, Rosener teaches wherein while the electronic device that is associated with the user of the head-wearable device is in proximity to the head-wearable device and the electronic device is presenting the audio data: automatically, without user instruction, determining whether the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is present (Paragraphs 0057-0075 using don/doff sensors data and proximity sensor data in any ordered combinations).
Regarding claim 6, Rosener teaches wherein the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates one or more of the user’s biometric data, neuromuscular signals, location, movement (Paragraph 0065), or ambient lighting.
Regarding claim 7, Rosener teaches wherein the audio data corresponds to one or more of a video call, live stream, video stream, audio stream, and a text-to-speech (TTS) message (Paragraphs 0006, 0008, 0026-0028, 0031, 0078-0085).
Regarding claim 8, Rosener teaches a microphone; and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the head-wearable device to: in accordance with a determination that sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that at least one precondition for capturing audio data is present at the head-wearable device: cease to cause capture other audio data at the electronic device, and cause the capture of the other audio data at the microphone of the head-wearable device; and in accordance with a determination that the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for capturing audio data is no longer present at the head-wearable device: cease to cause capture of the other audio data at the head-wearable device, and cause capture of the other audio data at the electronic device (Paragraphs 0042, 0105 same conditions for audio output by headset speaker also apply to audio input from headset microphone).
Regarding claim 10, Rosener teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a head-wearable device (Figs. 1 item 102, Fig. 2 item 202, Fig. 4 item 400, Fig. 6 item 600, Fig. 7 item 700, Fig. 9 item 901, Fig. 10 item 1002, Figs. 12A-12B item 1202), cause the head-wearable device (Paragraphs 0046-0047) to:
while an electronic device (Figs. 1-2 item 101, Fig. 8 item 805, Fig. 9 item 903, Fig. 10 item 1001, Figs. 12A-12B item 1201) that is associated with a user of the head-wearable device is in proximity to the head-wearable device and the electronic device is presenting audio data:
in accordance with a determination that sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that at least one precondition for presenting audio data is present at the head-wearable device (Don/ Donned state):
cease to cause presentation of the audio data at the electronic device (stop presenting audio at mobile phone), and
cause presentation of the audio data at the speaker of the head-wearable device (present audio at the headset); and
in accordance with a determination that the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is no longer present at the head-wearable device (Doff/ Doffed state):
cease to cause presentation of the audio data at the head-wearable device (stop presenting audio at the headset), and
cause presentation of the audio data at the electronic device (present audio at the mobile phone) (Paragraphs 0030, 0034-0035, 0038-0039, 0048-0051, 0053-0056, 0064).
Regarding claim 11, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is determined to be present at the head-wearable device when the head-wearable device is worn by the user (Paragraphs 0032, 0043 Don/ Donned state).
Regarding claim 12, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is determined to no longer be present at the head-wearable device when the head-wearable device is no longer worn by the user (Paragraph 0032 Doff/ Doffed state).
Regarding claim 13, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data includes one or more of a predetermined electronic device position (Paragraphs 0058-0062 near head or not near head) or a predetermined head-worn wearable device position (Paragraphs 0032, 0043 Don/ Donned/ Doff/ Doffed state).
Regarding claim 14, Rosener teaches wherein while the electronic device that is associated with the user of the head-wearable device is in proximity to the head-wearable device and the electronic device is presenting the audio data: automatically, without user instruction, determining whether the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is present (Paragraphs 0057-0075 using don/doff sensors data and proximity sensor data in any ordered combinations).
Regarding claim 15, Rosener teaches in accordance with a determination that sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that at least one precondition for capturing audio data is present at the head-wearable device: cease to cause capture other audio data at the electronic device, and cause the capture of the other audio data at a microphone of the head-wearable device; and in accordance with a determination that the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for capturing audio data is no longer present at the head-wearable device: cease to cause capture of the other audio data at the head-wearable device, and cause capture of the other audio data at the electronic device (Paragraphs 0042, 0105 same conditions for audio output by headset speaker also apply to audio input from headset microphone).
Regarding claim 16, Rosener teaches a method comprising:
while an electronic device (Figs. 1-2 item 101, Fig. 8 item 805, Fig. 9 item 903, Fig. 10 item 1001, Figs. 12A-12B item 1201) that is associated with a user of a head-wearable device is in proximity to the head-wearable device and the electronic device is presenting audio data:
in accordance with a determination that sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that at least one precondition for presenting audio data is present at the head-wearable device (Don/ Donned state):
ceasing to cause presentation of the audio data at the electronic device (stop presenting audio at mobile phone), and
causing presentation of the audio data at the speaker of the head-wearable device (present audio at the headset); and
in accordance with a determination that the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is no longer present at the head-wearable device (Doff/ Doffed state):
ceasing to cause presentation of the audio data at the head-wearable device (stop presenting audio at the headset), and
causing presentation of the audio data at the electronic device (present audio at the mobile phone) (Paragraphs 0030, 0034-0035, 0038-0039, 0048-0051, 0053-0056, 0064).
Regarding claim 17, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data includes one or more of a predetermined electronic device position (Paragraphs 0058-0062 near head or not near head) or a predetermined head-worn wearable device position (Paragraphs 0032, 0043 Don/ Donned/ Doff/ Doffed state).
Regarding claim 18, Rosener teaches wherein while the electronic device that is associated with the user of the head-wearable device is in proximity to the head-wearable device and the electronic device is presenting the audio data: automatically, without user instruction, determining whether the sensor data received at the head-wearable device indicates that the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is present (Paragraphs 0057-0075 using don/doff sensors data and proximity sensor data in any ordered combinations).
Regarding claim 19, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is determined to be present at the head-wearable device when the head-wearable device is worn by the user (Paragraphs 0032, 0043 Don/ Donned state).
Regarding claim 20, Rosener teaches wherein the at least one precondition for presenting audio data is determined to no longer be present at the head-wearable device when the head-wearable device is no longer worn by the user (Paragraph 0032 Doff/ Doffed state).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosener as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0130711).
Regarding claim 9, Rosner teaches a user device include video devices (Paragraphs 0078, 0076, 0094), and Rosner further teaches switching video output from headset and video display device and switching audio input from microphone between headset and mobile phone similar to switching audio output from headset and mobile phone speaker based on (Donned/ Doffed state) (Paragraphs 0081-0105). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Rosner was equally applicable to switch video input between headset and mobile phone based on head-wearable device status. But, Rosner does not teach it explicitly.
However, in the similar field, Lee teaches to switch video input from headset and mobile phone based on head-wearable device status (Paragraphs 0047-0067, specifically “[0057] In the wearing mode of the HMD, if the first contact and the second contact are not detected because the nose pad is separated from a nose of a user and the temple is separated from a head of the user, respectively, the HMD can switch the wearing mode to the non-wearing mode. [0058] For instance, when a user makes a call using the HMD, the HMD can terminate the call with the other party. According to embodiment, if the HMD is paired with a cellular phone, the HMD terminates the pairing and can grant a control authority to the cellular phone to enable the user to make a call to the other party using the cellular phone.” (emphasis added)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Rosner to include switching video input from headset and mobile phone based on head-wearable device status as taught by Lee in order to “grant a control authority to the cellular phone to enable the user to make a call to the other party using the cellular phone” (Lee, Paragraph 0058).when “the HMD can switch the wearing mode to the non-wearing mode” (Lee, Paragraph 0057).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights