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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2.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.
3.Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood et al. (US 20250013310) in view of SPITTLE et al. (US 20260156413).
Regarding claim 1, Amihood discloses, a method comprising: detecting, by one or more processors of the electronic device, a predefined gesture at a user interface (Paragraphs: 0003, 0057 and fig.1A-B, 119: Amihood discusses how gestures (such as, predefined gestures 119) are defined in memory, and, in some examples, mapped to specific operations; and how the gesture detector detects the gesture for controlling a wearable device); and replacing, by the one or more processors at the user interface, a default control mapping of the electronic device with another default control mapping of another electronic device of the control mapped electronic device pair (Paragraph: 0057 and fig.1A-B, 119: Amihood discusses how a predefined gestures are defined in memory, and, mapped to specific operations on a wearable device).
Amihood discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically mentioning “a method in an electronic device of an asymmetrically control mapped electronic device pair”
SPITTLE discloses a method in an electronic device of an asymmetrically control mapped electronic device pair (Paragraphs: 0228, 0909 and 0973: SPITTLE discusses how the ear device will benefit from being designed with some asymmetric enhancements to the physical and mechanical properties of the devices; and how the data at each ear may be transferred to the other ear device to ensure that each ear processor has the same information to analyze and process and alternatively, the data transfers can be asymmetrical)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Amihood, and modify a system wherein an electronic device of an asymmetrically control mapped electronic device pair, as taught by SPITTLE, thus the audio system can be customized by the user, to allows the user to control more than just the sound levels and to select more than one of a pre-determined settings, as discussed by SPITTLE.
Regarding claim 11, Amihood discloses an electronic device, comprising: a communication device; and one or more processors operable with the communication device (Paragraph: 0090: Amihood discusses how the control system include a communication module providing for communication and exchange of information between the head mounted wearable device and other external devices); wherein the one or more processors, in response to determining that only one companion electronic device of an asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device pair is actively being used and is receiving a control mapping switch gesture at a user interface (Paragraphs: 0003, 0054, 0057 and fig.1A-B, 119: Amihood discusses how gestures are defined in memory, and, in some examples, mapped to specific operations; and how the wearable device includes an input manager that receives the gesture indication and uses the identifier to execute a corresponding operation such as, an assigned a predefined gesture),
Amihood discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically mentioning “cause the only one companion electronic device to remap its user interface with a control mapping belonging to another companion electronic device of the asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device pair”
SPITTLE discloses a system cause the only one companion electronic device to remap its user interface with a control mapping belonging to another companion electronic device of the asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device pair (Paragraphs: 0228, 0909 and 0385: SPITTLE discusses how the ear device will benefit from being designed with some asymmetric enhancements to the physical and mechanical properties of the devices; and how the data at each ear may be transferred to the other ear device to ensure that each ear processor has the same information to analyze and process and alternatively, transfers data asymmetrical. SPITTLE also discusses how the DSP instruction set which include instructions for executing spatial remapping operations, and the spatial remapping operations apply an amplitude (or gain) and phase adjustment).
Regarding claim 17, Amihood discloses a method in an electronic device, the method comprising: determining, that only one control mapped companion electronic device is actively being used by a user (Paragraphs: 0003, 0057 and fig.1A-B, 119: Amihood discusses how gestures are defined in memory, and, in some examples, mapped to specific operations); receiving, by the communication device from the only one control mapped companion electronic device, signals indicating that a control mapping switch gesture was received by a user interface of the only one control mapped companion electronic device (Paragraphs: 0054, 0057 and fig.1A-B, 119: Amihood discusses how gestures mapped to specific operations; and how the wearable device includes an input manager that receives the gesture indication and uses the identifier to execute a corresponding operation such as, an assigned a predefined gesture);
Amihood discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically mentioning “a communication device paired with asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device; and delivering, by the communication device, remapping control signals to the only one control mapped companion electronic device causing a control map at the user interface to switch from a first control mapping to a second control mapping”
SPITTLE discloses a communication device paired with asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device (Paragraphs: 0228, 0909 and 0973: SPITTLE discusses how the ear device will benefit from being designed with some asymmetric enhancements to the physical and mechanical properties of the devices; and how data transfers can be asymmetrical); and delivering, by the communication device, remapping control signals to the only one control mapped companion electronic device causing a control map at the user interface to switch from a first control mapping to a second control mapping (Paragraphs: 0385,0790 and 0805: SPITTLE discusses how the data at each ear may be transferred to the other ear device to ensure that each ear processor has the same information to analyze and process; and how the DSP instruction set which include instructions for executing spatial remapping operations, and the spatial remapping operations apply an amplitude (or gain) and phase adjustment)
Considering claim 2, Amihood further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the predefined gesture comprises a sliding gesture (Paragraphs: 0004 and 0055: Amihood discusses various gestures such as directional swipes (e.g., swipe right, swipe left, swipe up, swipe down, etc.)).
Considering claim 3, Amihood further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the user interface, user input after the replacing; and controlling, by the one or more processors, the electronic device as a function of where the user input is received at the another default control mapping (Paragraph: 0057 and fig.1A-B, 119: Amihood discusses how a predefined gestures are defined in memory, and, mapped to specific operations on a wearable device).
Considering claim 4, Amihood further discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising returning, by the one or more processors at the user interface, the default control mapping in response to a predefined condition occurring (Paragraphs: 0029 and 0053: Amihood discusses how the gesture detector determines whether a gesture (e.g., a predefined gesture) has been made based at least on the first electronic signal and the second electronic signal; and If the gesture detector determines that the predefined gesture was made, an input manager may perform an operation on the wearable device corresponding to the predefined gesture).
Considering claim 9, SPITTLE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the replacing occurs when the another electronic device of the asymmetrically control mapped electronic device pair is not in use (Paragraphs: 0180 and 0935: SPITTLE discusses how a hearing device, user's needs or wants may change depending on the specific scenario (such as user's activity, etc.); and how the activities are categorized and confirmed using the sensors at the ear device).
Considering claim 10, Spittle further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the replacing occurs when an energy level of an energy storage device of the another electronic device of the asymmetrically control mapped electronic device pair is below a predefined threshold (Paragraphs: 0220, 0352 and 0614: battery level, sensors data and other information that the system has programmed to be useful at each ear device; and the system indicates when battery level drops to a certain threshold, i.e. allowing to replace the battery upon the system indicating battery level below threshold).
Considering claim 12, Amihood further discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the only one companion electronic device comprises an earbud (Paragraphs: 0003 and 0026: Amihood discusses a user may be wearing a hearable device (such as., earbuds)).
Considering claim 18, Spittle further discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first control mapping is a default control mapping for the only one control mapped companion electronic device of the asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device pair (fig.46, 400). and the second control mapping is another default control mapping of another control mapped companion electronic device of the asymmetrically control mapped companion electronic device pair (fig.46, 1405).
Considering claim 19, Spittle further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the first control mapping and the second control mapping are different (fig.46, 1400, 1405).
Considering claim 20, Spittle further discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the only one control mapped companion electronic device pair is an earbud (fig.46, 1400).
3. Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood et al. (US 20250013310) in view of SPITTLE et al. (US 20260156413) and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 20160253998)
Considering claim 5, Amihood in view of SPITTLE fail to disclose claim 5. Iyer however discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the predefined condition comprises an expiration of a timer initiated when the predefined gesture is received (Paragraphs: 0092, 0054 and 0112: Iyer discusses how the predefined user input is received prior to expiration of the timer; and how the predefined condition can be a gesture input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Amihood and SPITTLE, and modify a system wherein the predefined condition comprises an expiration of a timer initiated when the predefined gesture is received, as taught by Iyer, thus providing an improved assistance in noisy environments when a user delivers voice commands from a close proximity to a microphone, as discussed by Iyer.
Considering claim 6, Iyer further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the predefined condition comprises receiving the user input again at the user interface within a predefined duration threshold (Paragraphs: 0104, 0112 and fig.2, 246: Iyer discusses how a predefined user input received prior to expiration of the timer, i.e. obvious to receive the user input again at the user interface within a predefined duration threshold).
4.Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood et al. (US 20250013310) in view of SPITTLE et al. (US 20260156413) and further in view of Van et al. (US 20180088795)
Considering claim 7, Amihood in view of SPITTLE fail to discloses the method of claim 7. Van however discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the predefined condition comprises receiving a predefined override gesture at the user interface (Paragraphs: 0045 and 0219: Van discusses how the received gesture overrides the work mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Amihood and SPITTLE, and modify a system wherein the predefined condition comprises receiving a predefined override gesture at the user interface, as taught by Van, thus enables reducing or eliminating time spent by a user navigating user interfaces to locate desired features, as discussed by Van.
Considering claim 8, Amihood further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the predefined override gesture comprises one of a long tap, a double tap, or a triple tap (Paragraphs: 0003-0004 and 0026: Amihood discusses a gesture detector on a wearable device that determines a gesture (e.g., a tap, double tap, a swipe, a pinch, etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
YOSEF K. LAEKEMARIAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2651
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights