DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on June 5th 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Murray does not teach the SMD because the office action interprets the SMD as not comprising the IoT controller (pg. 10). This is not persuasive. The previous response to arguments simply pointed out that the IoT controller is what performs the “control”, as recited by the claim. Furthermore, under the BRI, this IoT controller is not required to be physically within a housing of the SMD. The office action never stated the SMD did not comprise the IoT controller. The remarks referenced by applicant were in response to applicant’s previous argument regarding Murray, in which applicant suggested the SMD of Murray did not “control” because Murray taught a remote control device.
Applicant argues Murray does not teach “control, via the IoT controller … “ (pg. 10). Applicant seems to acknowledge the cited paragraphs teach using a control to send commands but suggests these are distinct from the SMD. This is not persuasive because Murray explicitly discloses a microphone button for voice commands (paragraph 50, Fig. 3A and see paragraph 61 – cited in the previous office action). The BRI of the claim includes a SMD comprising an IoT controller. Thus, it is not required for the “control” step to be local to the SMD, as the claim explicitly states the control is performed “via the IoT controller”. Therefore, the controller of Murray reads on the claimed limitation, contrary to applicant’s assertion otherwise.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, it does not overcome the rejection because Murray teaches a plurality of voice commands (paragraph 50), and sending the commands via a network to control devices (Fig. 2). See the detailed rejection below.
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 18, applicant argues (pg. 11-12) the art does not teach the amendment but provides no reasoning why it distinguishes over the voice privacy button of Jukubowski. Thus, this is merely an allegation of patentability that is not persuasive. Jukubowski teaches the amended features as explained in the detailed rejection below. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray US 2018/0310070 A1 in view of Riedl et al. US 2019/0250899 A1 and Park et al. US 2019/0268661 A1 in further view of Prestenback et al. US 2010/0254674 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a smart media device comprising:
a network interface, wherein the network interface is communicatively coupled to one or more third party cloud services and a network of a service provider (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 34, 38-39);
a microphone; a camera; a display; a memory and processor (client device – see Figs. 2, 4, and paragraphs 61-62), an Internet of Things (IoT) controller (control IoT devices from the smart device – see paragraph 41, Figs. 1-2) to:
provide one or more SMD menu displays associated with the SMD (menu display/interface – paragraph 3, Fig. 7) services controlled by the SMD (menu provides user control of services – Fig. 7, paragraph 112);
receive, via the network interface, data from the service provider (connected to server/content provider via network – see Figs. 1-2);
receive, via the microphone, a plurality of first user commands, wherein the plurality of first user commands comprise audio (microphone receives voice commands – paragraphs 50, 61, and Fig. 3A);
send, via the network interface, at least one of the plurality of first user commands to one or more network resources (send commands via the network to control devices – see Figs. 1-2, paragraph 50
receive, via the camera, a second user command, wherein the second user command comprises a visual movement (camera performs gesture recognition – paragraph 61);
automatically activate the display upon receiving the data (display content automatically – paragraph 28);
output to the display the data (Fig. 7, paragraphs 79, 111);
provide, via the IoT controller, a Wi-Fi connection to the internet (internet connection – see abstract, Wi-Fi – see paragraph 38) and a two-way wireless communication with one or more IoT equipped devices (communicate wirelessly with devices – paragraph 38, Figs. 1-2) and with a third party cloud service of the one or more third party cloud services (device communicates with cloud-computing system – paragraph 38; cloud computing system is a server associated with a manufacturer or other support entity/service provider – see paragraph 39; thus it is a “third party” cloud service, and the network interface uses wireless – see paragraph 53); and
control, via the IoT controller, the one or more IoT equipped devices based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of first user commands, the second user command or both (device switches to content selected by the user via the interface – paragraphs 35; control casting devices / smart home devices – see paragraphs 68-73; voice command – paragraphs 50, 61).
Murray does not explicitly disclose wherein the IoT controller is configured to communicate with a background service and user interface (BSUI) and send a list of IoT device state updates of the one or more IoT equipped devices to the BSUI. But this is taught by Riedl as an IoT hub that communicates with a background IoT service (see paragraphs 46-48 and Fig. 1A, 4A). IoT device state information is duplicated at the background service (see Fig. 32 and paragraph 272). This synchronization with the IoT service includes indications of state changes (paragraph 295 and 297, Figs. 35-36). Riedl also communicates with a user interface (user device 135 has user interface – see Fig. 1A and paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murray with the device state update taught by Riedl for the purpose of managing/controlling a plurality of IoT devices. Riedl suggests the IoT platform allows a developer to provide unique IoT functionality to users (paragraphs 45, 50).
The combination of Murray and Riedl does not explicitly disclose receive from the third party cloud service content that is information specific to at least one of the one or more IoT equipped devices and send to the display the content but this is taught by Park. Park discloses a system comprising a plurality of IoT devices communicating with a backend service and a display device (see Fig. 1). This system allows a display device to identify content based on status information of IoT devices (paragraph 23). Park teaches the server receives IoT specific information and based on that information, retrieving content specific to the IoT device and displaying the content on a display (see Figs. 7-9 and paragraphs 7 and 123). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Murray and Riedl with the content retrieval technique taught by Park for the purpose of retrieving specific content based on the information provided by the IoT devices. Park suggests this allows the server to determine user preference for content and predict user behavior (paragraph 32). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would allow for improvements to the user experience.
The combination of Murray, Riedl and Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more SMD menu displays are associated with one or more menu items that are associated with one or more network services. But this is explicitly taught by Prestenback as a “smart” media player with a menu wherein the options are associated with network services such as retrieving supplemental content form a remote server via a network (paragraphs 3-4, 20, 34 and Figs. 1, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Murray, Riedl and Park with the menu of Prestenback for the purpose of interfacing with a media content delivery system. The use of menus to navigate and control such a system is very well-known in the art and yields predictable results. Thus, this combination is nothing more than the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Murray discloses detect an activation command; and activate in response to the activation command (user “activates” via button, or interaction with user interface – see paragraphs
Regarding claim 3, Murray discloses the activation command is detected via the microphone, the camera, or both (microphone or camera accept commands – paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 4, Murray discloses determine whether the activation command is associated with a smart assistant or a local function (voice command is extracted to control smart home and devices in the environment – paragraphs 50, 61; this would include determining whether the command is local or needs to be transmitted a smart home device).
Regarding claim 5, Murray discloses in response to the determination that the activation command is associated with the smart assistant, identify the smart assistant associated with the activation command, and wherein activating in response to the activation command comprises activating the smart assistant (control devices in smart home environment with voice command – paragraphs 50, 61; this includes “activating” a device).
Regarding claim 6, Murray discloses in response to determination that the activation command is associated with the local function, provide an output command to a local device (output commands to local devices on the home network – see Figs. 2 and 8-11).
Regarding claim 8, it is a method that corresponds to the device of claim 1; therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 9-10 and 12-14 correspond to previously presented dependent claims 2-6, and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to the device of claim 1; therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 16-17 and 19-20 correspond to previously presented dependent claims 2-4 and 6 respectively, and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray and Riedl and Park and Prestenback in further view of Jukubowski et al. US 2020/0112587 A1.
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 18, Murray does not disclose a voice privacy button, wherein the privacy button is an electronic persistent switch configured to (i) not allow for software control; and (ii) allow a state of the voice privacy button to remain through power cycles; and wherein the voice privacy button has memory to automatically return to the state when power is disrupted. But this is taught by Jukubowski as a physical switch that activates privacy mode wherein software control of a microphone and camera is not allowed (abstract, Fig. 4, paragraph 36). The switch of Jukubowski must be physically toggled (Figs. 4-5) so it would “remain through power cycles” as well as “automatically return to the state when power is disrupted” because Jukubowski teaches the “only way” to change the state is a physical button press (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Murray, Riedl, Park and Prestenback to add a privacy switch as taught by Jukubowski. Jukubowski teaches that users prefer to keep private and that a simple indicator could be hacked (paragraph 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luna et al. US 2014/0358951 A1 discloses a smart media device in communication with service providers and third parties (Figs. 1-2, paragraph 26).
Nagata et al. US 2013/0176502 A1 discloses automatically activating a display when content is acquired (paragraph 99).
Nakanishi et al. US 10,021,456 B2 discloses a set top box (STB) provides a user with one or more menu items for requesting a service (abstract).
Jakubowski et al. US 11,343,274 B2 discloses a non-spoofable switch that is hardware based to enable privacy mode which disables sensors (see abstract, Fig. 4) and that the device connects to third-party systems (Fig. 1).
Heckman et al. US 2018/0190285 A1 discloses a voice-activated electronic device that provides users a hand-free voice interface to activate functions on connected devices (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 23).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458