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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The newly added limitations “based at least in part on the retrieved program listing data, generating, at the server, a program recommendation”; “transmitting, from the server to the smart speaker, the program recommendation”; and “receiving, at the server, a second request from the smart speaker, wherein the second request is based at least in part on a second input related to the set top box received at the smart speaker, and wherein the second input is received at the smart speaker after the program recommendation is generated for output at the smart speaker” are clearly met by the Bradley reference. Bradley teaches that based on a first request (i.e. play star wars), program listing recommendation are generated (different episodes of star wars) and based on a selection of the desired episode (second request the program is played) (figures 8-10, paragraph 277-279), meeting the claim language.
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.
Claims 1, 31-32, 34, 36, 40-42, 44 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Bradley et al., US 2020/0236152 in view of Satgunam, US 2015/0161883 in view of Vasquez, US 2022/0020363.
Regarding claims 1 and 40, Bradley discloses a system for controlling a set-top box via a smart speaker, the system comprising: a communication port; and control circuitry configured to:
receive, at a server, a first request from the smart speaker, wherein the first request is based at least in part on a first input related to the set-top box received at the smart speaker (904-paragraph 274);
identifying, at the server, a user profile associated with the first request (paragraph 228-229);
based at least in part on the user profile and the request, retrieve, at the server, program listing data (figure 10, paragraph 277-279);
based at least in part on the retrieved program listing data, generating, at the server, a program recommendation (figure 10, paragraph 277-279);
transmitting, from the server to the smart speaker, the program recommendation (figure 10, paragraph 277-279);
receiving, at the server, a second request from the smart speaker, wherein the second request is based at least in part on a second input related to the set top box received at the smart speaker, and wherein the second input is received at the smart speaker after the program recommendation is generated for output at the smart speaker (figure 10, paragraph 277-279);
identify, at the server, based at least in part on the second request, a command for controlling the set-top box based on the program listing data (paragraph 52, 54 and 289-291);
wherein the command comprises one or more infrared control codes, Bluetooth control codes, or Wi-Fi control codes from a plurality of control codes which are associated with the set-top box (figure 1, paragraph 52, 54 and 289-291);
transmit, from the server to the smart speaker, at least one of the program listing data and the command (paragraph 289-291).
Bradley is silent about identify a command corresponding to a command data structure for controlling the set-top box and the data structure is based on a model of the set-top box.
In an analogous art, Satgunam discloses identify a command corresponding to a command data structure for controlling the set-top box and the data structure is based on a model of the set-top box (figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley’s system with the teachings of Satgunam. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to control the correct device for the benefit of providing the desired media.
Bradley and Satgunam are silent about modifying the command based at least in part on at least one of the determined user intent associated with the request or the plurality of control codes associated with the set-top box.
In an analogous art, Vasquez discloses modifying the command based at least in part on at least one of the determined user intent associated with the request or the plurality of control codes associated with the set-top box (paragraph 36-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley and Satgunam’s system with the teachings of Vasquez. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to properly control the device for the benefit of performing the correct instruction.
Regarding claims 31 and 41, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein:
the first input is related to a user asking for program recommendation (Bradley paragraph 274); and
the second input is related to a user accepting the program recommendation generated for output at the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 277-279).
Regarding claims 32 and 42, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to identify the command for controlling the ser top box by: transmitting, from the server to the smart speaker, the program listing data; and receiving, at the server, the command, wherein the command is identified at the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 277-279 and 287-291).
Regarding claims 34 and 44, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
receive, at the server, a set-top box identifier associated with the set-top box, wherein the set top box identifier was identified at the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 261 and 263; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63); and
retrieve, at the server and based on the set-top box identifier, a control command set of one or more control commands for controlling the set-top box, wherein each of the one or more control commands corresponds to a respective command data structure based on the model of the set-top box and comprises a respective sequence of one or more infrared control codes, Bluetooth control codes, or Wi-Fi control codes which are associated with the set-top box (Bradley paragraph 289-291; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63); and
wherein:
the control circuitry configured to identify the command based on the program listing data is further configured to identify a control command from the control command set (Bradley paragraph 289-291; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63); and
the control circuitry configured to transmit the command, from the server to the smart speaker, is further configured to transmit the identified control command from the control command set (Bradley paragraph 289-291; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63).
Regarding claims 37 and 47, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the command transmitted from the server to the smart speaker is received at the smart speaker via a microphone of the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 57, 66 and 93).
Claims 38 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Bradley in view of Satgunam in view of Vasquez in view of Sugiura, US 2022/0043627.
Regarding claims 38 and 48, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40.
Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez are silent about retrieving program listing data comprising one or more of date, time and/or channel information for a television program and/or a movie.
In an analogous art, Sugiura discloses program listing data comprising one or more of date, time and/or channel information for a television program and/or a movie (paragraph 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez’s system with the teachings of Sugiura. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to inform the user about the timing of the media for the benefit of having a comprehensive interface.
Claims 39 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Bradley in view of Satgunam in view of Vasquez in view of Istvan, US 2002/0184635.
Regarding claim 39 and 49, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40,
the control circuitry configured to identify the command is further configured to determine a plurality of control commands required to complete an action at the set-top box (Bradley paragraph 289-291);
the control circuitry configured to transmit the command from the server to the smart speaker is further configured to transmit the plurality of control commands (Bradley paragraph 289-291).
Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez are silent about storing a representation of an Electronic Program Guide (EPG) associated with the set-top box at the server; and identify commands based on the stored representation of the EPG.
In an analogous art, Istvan discloses storing a representation of an Electronic Program Guide (EPG) associated with the set-top box at the server; and identify commands based on the stored representation of the EPG (abstract, paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez’s system with the teachings of Istvan. The motivation would have been to have a decentralized system for the benefit of saving resources at the user end.
Conclusion
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights