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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 31-45 and 47-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 31-45 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new added limitations “determine a user intent associated with the request” and “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” are not described in the specification or originally claims.
The specification and originally filed claims are silent about determining any intent associated with the request. For purposes of art rejection this intent will be treated as a regular command if there is some other meaning in the specification or originally filed claims a clarification is requested.
Also the specification and originally filed claims are silent about modifying any command; at most the specification teaches the well known feature of controlling a device via a sequence of commands. If there is another meaning for this modification of commands a clarification is requested.
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, 31-37, 40-45, 47 and 50 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 the smart speaker, an input related to the set-top box (904-paragraph 274);
identifying, at a server, a user profile associated with the input (paragraph 228-229);
transmit, to the server, a request based on the input (paragraph 265);
retrieve, at the server and based on the request, program listing data (figure 10, paragraph 277-279);
determine a user intent associated with the request (paragraph 265);
identify, without additional user input, based at least in part on the 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 identified command (paragraph 289-291); and
transmit, from the smart speaker to the set-top box, the identified command (paragraph 287-291).
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 input is a first input and is for a program recommendation (Bradley paragraph 274);
the request is a first request and is based on the first input (Bradley paragraph 274);
the control circuitry configured to retrieve the program listing data is further configured to retrieve the program listing based on the first request and the user profile (Bradley paragraph 277);
the control circuitry is further configured to generate a program recommendation, at the server, based on at least one of the user profile, the first request and/or the program listing data (Bradley paragraph 277-279); and
the control circuitry is further configured to:
transmit the program recommendation, from the server, to the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 289-291);
output the program recommendation at the smart speaker (Bradley figure 10); and
receive a second input related to the program recommendation and the set-top box at the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 277-279); and
the control circuitry configured to identify the command for controlling the set-top box is further configured to identify the command based on the second input (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: transmit the program listing data from the server to the smart speaker; and identify the command at the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 287-291).
Regarding claims 33 and 43, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: identify the command at the server; and transmit the command from the server to the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 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:
identify, at the smart speaker, a set-top box identifier associated with the set-top box (Bradley paragraph 261 and 263; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63);
transmit, to a server, the set-top box identifier (Bradley paragraph 265; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63);
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);
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); and
the control circuitry configured to transmit the command, from the smart speaker to the set-top box, 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 35 and 45, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
receive, at the smart speaker, one or more control commands from a control device of 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);
store the one or more control commands, thereby creating a received control command set (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 received 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 smart speaker to the set-top box is further configured to transmit the identified control command from the received control command set (Bradley paragraph 289-291; Satgunam figures 5a-5b; paragraph 45, 50, 58, 60 and 63).
Regarding claims 36 and 46, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to receive the command via a microphone of the smart speaker (Bradley paragraph 57, 66-67).
Regarding claims 37 and 47, Bradley, Satgunam and Vasquez disclose the system of claim 40, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to transmit the command from the smart speaker to the set-top box via an infrared transmitter or a Bluetooth transmitter (Bradley paragraph 52, 54 and 65).
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); and
the control circuitry configured to transmit the command from the smart speaker to the set-top box further 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.
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