Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 18, 2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Illustrative claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
Identifying , by the one or more processors and from the storage, the first data structure . . . .
determining, based on the information for controlling the first peripheral device and by the one or more processors, the first device command . . .
. . . .
Identifying, by the one or more processors and from the storage, the second data structure . . . .
Determining, based on the information for controlling the second peripheral device and by the one or more processors, the second device command . . .
. . . .
and subsequent to sending the first device command for causing the first peripheral device to perform the function performed by the first peripheral device to the first peripheral device
. . . .
It is not clear what the repeated use of the phrase “and from storage” refers back to. For example, it is not understood what identifying “from storage” means if “identifying” is what the phrase is intended to refer back to. Alternatively, if the phrase refers back to “one or more processors,” it is not clear how a processor performs some unrecited step “from storage.”
Similarly, it is not clear whether the repeated use of the phrase “and by the one or more processors” refers back to “information” or “for controlling.”
The phrase “the first peripheral device to perform the function performed by the first peripheral device to the first peripheral device” appears tautological possibly due to a typographical error and cannot be reasonably interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-20, as they can best be understood (see the indefiniteness rejection above) are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0034081 A1 (hereinafter “Marshall”).
Regarding claim 1,
Figs. 1 and 2A of the Marshall prior art are illustrative and are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1041
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
764
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receiving, by one or more processors of a master device, a first data structure including information for controlling a first peripheral device,
Regarding Fig. 1 above, Marshall teaches the step of receiving information at a master device (external server 180) information for controlling peripheral devices (Fig. 1, automobile 130, television 140, stove 150, and house 160). See also ¶ 177 regarding the external server 180 (master device) receiving the information. Also regarding receiving information for controlling a peripheral, see Fig. 2A, steps 215 (“Poll the Networked Device to Identify Capabilities”), 230 (“Receive an Input from the User”) and step 235 (“Identify at Least One Responsive Capability Associated with the Input”), which results in information being received at the mobile telephone 110 and then external server 180 (master device). The received information contains information for controlling a peripheral because it is disclosed as being associated with a “responsive capability” of the peripheral. The master device (mobile phone) is controlled by a processor. ¶179. The received information is in the structured format of a “list.” ¶ 74. See also ¶ 116 regarding internal table format.
the information for controlling the first peripheral device including:
information identifying a user command associated with a function performed by the first peripheral device, and
The information, such as that displayed on the mobile screen, includes “information identifying a voice command (user command) associated with the peripheral device,” such as the displayed information “Save to Home Computer C:\” which also identifies the voice command (i.e., user command) associated with a function (save file) performed by the peripheral device (home computer). ¶76, 158. See also paragraphs 76 and 174, where the voice command (user command) may be “change bedroom TV channel” associated with a function (change channel) performed by the peripheral device (bedroom TV).
information identifying a first device command for causing the first peripheral device to perform the function performed by the first peripheral device;
The information discussed above also identifies device command corresponding to the voice command, e.g., “save to home computer C:\” or “change bedroom TV channel.” That is, the information identifies device commands (computer save file or change TV channel) that cause the peripheral device to perform the function. Also note that some of the received information also originates from the peripheral device (as discussed above) and such information includes a list of capabilities (e.g., channel changing capabilities) that identify device commands to perform the function (change the channel). Fig. 2A, step 215 and corresponding paragraphs 74 and 75.
storing, by the one or more processors, the received information for controlling the first peripheral device . . . . in storage
The received information discussed above must be stored because the received information is used to implement temporally subsequent voice commands as discussed. See also ¶ 66 where the polled capabilities are stored in tables (memory) in the server. ¶ 66. The server is a computing device and thus includes a processor. See also ¶ 179.
receiving, by the one or more processors and from a client device that is that different from the master device, the user command associated with the function performed by the first peripheral device;
identifying, by the one or more processors, the first peripheral device based on a portion of the user command associated with the function performed by the first peripheral device
The information received from the user discussed above also identifies the peripheral corresponding to the portion of the voice command (user command), e.g., “save to home computer C:\” or “change bedroom TV channel.” The master device (external server 180) is a server to the client device (telephone) (i.e. client-server architecture). ¶ 49, 66, 69, 70, 78, 93, 116, 117.
identifying, by the one or more processor and from the storage, the first data structure including information for controlling the first peripheral device based on identifying the peripheral device; determining, based on the information for controlling the first peripheral device and by the one or more processors, the first device command for causing the first peripheral device to perform the function performed by the first peripheral device; and sending, based on the receiving the user command associated with the function performed by the first peripheral device and by the one or more processors, the first device command to the peripheral device
Marshall discloses the processor (associated with the server as discussed above) obtaining information for controlling the first peripheral (e.g., available capabilities) based on identifying the device (“Identify at Least One Responsive Capability Associated with the Input”) (Fig. 2A, steps 215 and 235), were the input, as discussed above, was a voice command (user command) identifying the function (change channel) and peripheral device (e.g., bedroom TV). See also corresponding paragraphs 77-81. The device command (based on the information for controlling and user command as explained above) is determined and then transmitted to the peripheral device, which performs the function. Fig. 2A, step 240. See also corresponding paragraph 82.
The remaining limitations are similar to the limitations addressed above, except that these additional limitations are addressed to a “second device.” Marshall clearly teaches controlling multiple device (Fig. 1, TV 140, stove 150, home 160) and thus a “second device.”
Claim 8 differs substantively from claim 1 in that claim 8 recites a device comprising components that perform the functions recited in the method steps of claim 1. Thus, see the claim 1 rejection above for additional details, including the limitations “one or more processors” and “peripheral devices.”
Claim 15 differs substantively from claim 1 in that claim 15 recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” performing the functions recited in the method steps of claim 1. Thus, see the claim 1 rejection above for additional details. As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the master device includes a processor, which requires a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” in order to fetch instructions from to be executed by the processor. See also ¶ 179.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, see Fig. 2A, step 22, where the peripheral registers its capabilities with the processor (master device).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the processor (master device) receives from the peripheral device (e.g., smart oven) information for providing the user interface (e.g., oven current temperature, oven cooking time), which causes the peripheral device (oven) to be configured based on the configuration information (e.g., set cooking temperature, set cooking time). See Fig. 4B.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, the information is generically provided from various device (i.e., the input is not specific to a particular device) and does not raise incompatibility issues. The client device can also be different from the master device. That is, the client (mobile telephone) is different from the remote server.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, see ¶ 176.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, see ¶ 158.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection, information, such as that displayed on the mobile screen, includes “information identifying a voice command (user command) associated with the peripheral device,” such as the displayed information “Save to Home Computer C:\” which also identifies the voice command (i.e., user command) associated with a function (save file) performed by the peripheral device (home computer). ¶76, 158. See also paragraphs 76 and 174, where the voice command (user command) may be “change bedroom TV channel” associated with a function (change channel) performed by the peripheral device (bedroom TV). The received information for controlling the networked devices is gathered and stored (e.g., Fig. 200As, step 215 and 220) and subsequently this information is used to identify the information for controlling the peripheral device based on identifying the peripheral device. The command is then sent to the controlled device, see, e.g., Fig. 200A, step 240.
Regarding claim 20, the user command (to configure the client device) received from the client device (e.g., oven set point temperature and time, see the claim 3 rejection above) is different from the master device, which is a mobile telephone (see the claim 1 rejection above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection above. The Patent Owner asserts Marshall fails to disclose a “client device that is different from the master device” (Amendment, 15), however this Marshall discloses this teaching as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Reissue Reminders
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the subject patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to timely appraise the Office of any information, which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roland Foster whose telephone number is (571) 272-7538. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri., 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
Signed:
/ROLAND G FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 571-272-7538
Conferee(s): /DAVID E ENGLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992