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 .
Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 10-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arling U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0174436 in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,085,058, in further view of Hardt et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0308453.
Per Claim 1, Arling discloses: a method for optimizing utilization of a sink appliance (TV 106) having a plurality of ports (Paragraph 25, Figure 1; plurality of HDMI ports 112), comprising: using a first data indicative of a make and type of a source appliance to determine a capability of the source appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56; appliance type, brand and model number).
Arling uses the appliance type, brand, and model number to determine the specific device(s)/appliance(s) present within the system, and a matching command code set and capability profile for said particular device/appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56). Arling does not specifically teach using the device capability profile/information for matching each source device to specific ports of the television.
However, Lee, in a common field of endeavor (interconnecting electronic devices via HDMI ports), teaches a source device (1010) determining a capability of a sink device (Col. 9 lines 27-46, Col. 10 lines 6-19, Figures 7 and 8; Source device can transmit the EDID information read request to the sink device 1020 through the DDC S7030/S8030. The Sink device responds with its EDID information which allows the source device to determine the capabilities of the sink device. Col. 5 lines 51-55 discloses that the EDID information comprises the available functions of a sink device.). Lee further teaches determining if the capabilities of the source device and a first port of the sink device match, and also if the matching capabilities/ports are currently connected (Col. 10 lines 20-47). Lee further teaches that upon determining that a capability match is present/possible between a source device and a sink port, but that the match is not the current connection of devices/ports, causing an instruction to be provided to a user to inform the user that the source appliance should be changed and connected to the matching port of the sink appliance (Col. 10 lines 29-47; Col. 12 lines 4-21, Figure 11).
- It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching of matching the capabilities of a source device and a corresponding sink device port within the universal control engine (UCE) of Arling for the purpose of maximizing the capabilities of each of the source and sink devices. This would have been obvious since it has been held that applying a known technique (source/sink capability port matching and connection) to a known device (UCE, either standalone or integrated within a sink device such as the television of Lee or Arling) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2141, section III(D).
Lee does not specifically teach that the reconnection of a first device to a matching port is done while a second/different device is currently connected to that matching port.
However, Hardt discloses a source STB 310 comprising an HDMI IN port 312 and an HDMI OUT port 314, wherein two devices, sink television device 320 and source DVD player 330, are incorrectly connected to said HDMI IN/OUT ports (Paragraph 21, Fig. 4). Hardt further teaches detecting the incorrect connection orientation between the three devices via EDID information and informing a user to swap the connections of the TV 320 and DVD player 330 with respect to the HDMI IN/OUT ports 312/314 of the STB 310 (Paragraphs 21-25, Fig. 4).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hardt’s HDMI port swapping prompts within the system of Arling/Lee because matching HDMI ports of sink/source devices based on the capabilities ensures that the devices can operate based on their intended use (Hardt; Paragraphs 21-25).
Per Claim 2, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of ports each comprise a High-Definition Multimedia Interface port (Paragraph 25, Figure 1; plurality of HDMI ports 112).
Per Claim 203, Arling discloses that the UCE 100 can be incorporated within an internet-capable TV, which would therefore put it within the sink device (Paragraph 31). Arling does not specifically disclose the data read from the signal comprising Extended Display Identification Data.
However, Lee discloses capability data being transmitted as Extended Display Identification Data (Col. 5 lines 51-55, Col. 9 lines 39-46, and Col. 10 lines 6-19; EDID information).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the capability data of Arling as EDID, as taught by Lee, because EDID and CEC are well-known in the art to be used interchangeably, as taught by Lee (Col. 9 lines 39-46) and Arling (U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0337879; Paragraphs 16 and 23).
Per Claim 4, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first data is read from Consumer Electronics Control related data received by the sink appliance from the source appliance (Paragraphs 25, 26, 28, 40, 43, and 48 discuss the CEC limitation. Paragraph 31 discusses that the UCE 100 that performs the capability discovery can be incorporated within an internet-capable TV, which would therefore put it within the sink device.).
Per Claim 6, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first data is provided by a controlling device application configured to control functional operations of the source appliance (Paragraph 28; UCE device 100).
Per Claim 107, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the sink appliance comprises a television (TV 106).
Per Claim 10, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, comprising providing a remote server with the first data to determine the capability of the source appliance (Paragraph 28, cloud based server 206; Paragraph 42, database server 206).
Per Claim 11, Arling discloses Lee discloses an appliance (TV 106; Paragraph 31 discusses that the UCE 100 that performs the capability discovery can be incorporated within an internet-capable TV, which would therefore make the UCE/TV integration a sink device.), comprising:36 ACTIVE 46709077v1a processing device (processor 500); a plurality of ports in communication with the processing device (Paragraph 25 and Figure 1 discloses that TV 106 comprises a plurality of HDMI ports in order to connect to source appliances such as devices 108, 110, and 120. A processor 500 of a UCE 100 integrated within TV 106 would be in communication with said HDMI ports in order to perform the communications discussed in Paragraph 28.); and a memory having instructions executable by the processing device (Paragraphs 32 and 33; memory 502), the instructions, when executed by the processing device, causing the appliance to: 5use first data indicative of a make and type of a source appliance to determine a capability of the source appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56; appliance type, brand and model number).
Arling uses the appliance type, brand, and model number to determine the specific device(s)/appliance(s) present within the system, and a matching command code set and capability profile for said particular device/appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56). Arling does not specifically teach using the device capability profile/information for matching each source device to specific ports of the television.
However, Lee, in a common field of endeavor (interconnecting electronic devices via HDMI ports), teaches a source device (1010) determining a capability of a sink device (Col. 9 lines 27-46, Col. 10 lines 6-19, Figures 7 and 8; Source device can transmit the EDID information read request to the sink device 1020 through the DDC S7030/S8030. The Sink device responds with its EDID information which allows the source device to determine the capabilities of the sink device. Col. 5 lines 51-55 discloses that the EDID information comprises the available functions of a sink device.). Lee further teaches determining if the capabilities of the source device and a first port of the sink device match, and also if the matching capabilities/ports are currently connected (Col. 10 lines 20-47). Lee further teaches that upon determining that a capability match is present/possible between a source device and a sink port, but that the match is not the current connection of devices/ports, causing an instruction to be provided to a user to inform the user that the source appliance should be changed and connected to the matching port of the sink appliance (Col. 10 lines 29-47; Col. 12 lines 4-21, Figure 11).
- It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching of matching the capabilities of a source device and a corresponding sink device port within the universal control engine (UCE) of Arling for the purpose of maximizing the capabilities of each of the source and sink devices. This would have been obvious since it has been held that applying a known technique (source/sink capability port matching and connection) to a known device (UCE, either standalone or integrated within a sink device such as the television of Lee or Arling) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2141, section III(D).
Lee does not specifically teach that the reconnection of a first device to a matching port is done while a second/different device is currently connected to that matching port.
However, Hardt discloses a source STB 310 comprising an HDMI IN port 312 and an HDMI OUT port 314, wherein two devices, sink television device 320 and source DVD player 330, are incorrectly connected to said HDMI IN/OUT ports (Paragraph 21, Fig. 4). Hardt further teaches detecting the incorrect connection orientation between the three devices via EDID information and informing a user to swap the connections of the TV 320 and DVD player 330 with respect to the HDMI IN/OUT ports 312/314 of the STB 310 (Paragraphs 21-25, Fig. 4).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hardt’s HDMI port swapping prompts within the system of Arling/Lee because matching HDMI ports of sink/source devices based on the capabilities ensures that the devices can operate based on their intended use (Hardt; Paragraphs 21-25).
Per Claims 12-14 and 16-18, please refer to the above rejection of Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 10, respectively, as the limitations of said claims are substantially similar and have been previously discussed in detail.
* * * * * *
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arling U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0174436 in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,085,058, in further view of Hardt et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0308453, in further view of Arling et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0337879 (hereafter referred to as Arling_2).
Per Claims 5 and 15 Arling does not specifically disclose that the EDID data comprises video resolution capabilities. Lee discloses EDID data including video resolution capabilities of a sink device (Col. 9 lines 57-67).
However, Arling_2, similarly to Arling, teaches a device 100 querying both sink (108, 110) and source (106) devices for CEC and/or EDID information to identify said devices (Paragraph 16). Arling_2 further teaches said EDID information including video formats and resolutions supported by said devices (Paragraph 24).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Arling_2’s teaching of obtaining a video resolution capability of a source device within the source/sink system of Arling/Lee/Quere because video resolution is a commonly known attribute of source video devices, such as the DVD player 108 and STB/DVR 110 source devices of Arling.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record but not relied upon in the Examiner’s rejections is provided below along with the reasoning for considering it pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0376077 (hereafter, Asai) discloses a source device 100 and two sink devices SY1 and SY2. The source device comprises two different HDMI ports, T1 and T2, that have different capabilities (Paragraph 29). Asai further teaches detecting a mismatch in an existing connected between the source port(s) and a sink device and notifying a user to allow for a correction to be made with the HDMI connections (See Paragraphs 41-58).
U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0278926 (hereafter, Mendenhall) discloses a sink device comprising a plurality of different types of HDMI ports (Paragraph 17), and performing a diagnostic test to detect capabilities of the source and sink devices based on their respective HDMI ports (Paragraphs 27-38, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights