DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 12-23-2025. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending and have been considered below:
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niwamoto et al. (“Niwamoto” 7631197 B2) in view of Arling et al. (“Arling” 20050097618 A1) and Wang (729160 B1).
Claim 1: Niwamoto discloses a method for using a relay device; comprising: receiving by the relay device from an input device via a first wireless communications link a communication that functions to indicate that an activatable link in a graphical user interface of the input device was activated(Figures 19-21 and Column 23, Lines 42-55; activatable icons/links);
using by the relay device the communication to select from amongst a plurality of files individually stored in a memory of the relay device a file having a first data that identifies (Column 20, Lines 38-67 and Column 24, Lines 23-67; accessing gateway device);
a code data from amongst a plurality of code data stored in the memory of the relay device and a second data that identifies one or more commands from amongst a plurality of commands of the identified code data (Column 11, Lines 24-59, Column 15, Lines 5-10, (different programs for different devices) Column 20, Lines 38-67 and Column 24, Lines 23-67; the communication with the gateway system accesses memory storing data for TV, air condition application/program (file) and which identifies the program code and control content (commands), this program data is initialized to transmit to a controllable device);
and executing the single file to transmit the one or more commands from the relay device to a controllable device via a second communications (Column 11, Lines 24-59; execute programs files communicated through adaptor Figure 1:108);
While Niwamoto discloses programs which could be interpreted as the files, and program code which could be representative of code data, Arling is provided to further expound and supplement the features of Niwamoto.
First, Arling provides a user interface providing activatable inputs, additionally Arling discloses a system for controlling home appliances, while providing relay functionalities (Paragraph 41) and further discloses the linking of commands in addition to data elements along with device definitions which are found in XML files(Paragraph 30), and used for conversions. Each data set would reasonably represent a single file as the data sets are shown individually in Figure 2.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement in order to disclose the functionality of providing a particular file such as XML and within that relay/provide device information as constructed by Arling. One would have been motivated to provide this functionality because it provides an established system with clear mapping for accessing information improving overall operability.
Additionally, Wang is also provided because it discloses a functionality of a XML file (single) which provides an identifier and commands, which will be translated for operation (Figure 3, Column 4, Lines 22-29 and Column 7, Lines 40-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and provide a XML file with a function (command) and ID line, this syntax could be utilized with the XML and encoding functionality of Arling. One would have been motivated to provide this functionality because it provides an established method of mapping and accessing information thereby improving overall operability.
Claim 2: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, wherein the communication that functions to indicate that the activatable link was activated comprises a single file name of the file (Arling: Figure 2; shows individual data sets Paragraph 30; data sets provided as XML file and Wang: Figure 3).
Claim 4: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface page having the activatable link is provided to the input device by the relay device via the first wireless communications link (Niwamoto: Column 18, Lines 50-67) The display information is found in the database of the gateway and transmitted to the communication device.
Claim 5: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 4, wherein the first wireless communications link is a radio frequency protocol communications link (Niwamoto: Column 13, Lines 1-6). The server is further in communication with the device via a radio communication.
Claim 6: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 4, wherein the first wireless communications link is an infrared protocol communications link (Niwamoto: Column 14, Lines 57-60; infrared and Arling: Paragraph 29).
Claim 9: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, wherein the single file is XML encoded (Niwamoto: Column 22, Lines 40-46 and Arling: Figure 2 and Paragraph 30; data sets can be XML and Wang: Figure 3, Column 4, Lines 22-29 and Column 7, Lines 40-65).
Claim 10: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second communications link comprises a wireless communications link (Niwamoto: Column 13, Lines 3-14; radio and Arling: Paragraph 29).
Claim 11: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second communications link comprises an infrared protocol communications link (Niwamoto: Column 14, Lines 57-60; infrared and Arling: Paragraph 29).
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 10 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 11 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niwamoto et al. (“Niwamoto” 7631197 B2), Arling et al. (“Arling” 20050097618 A1) and Wang (729160 B1) in further view of Kopf (20080294667 A1).
Claim 3: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the communication that functions to indicate that the activatable link was activated comprises an HTTP protocol request message which includes a file name of the single file (Arling: Figure 2; data sets as XML files).
Kopf is provided because it discloses a system for sending commands from a display device to a secondary device, which further uses the functionality of a relay (Paragraph 124) and also uses HTTP request protocols and a XML file (Paragraphs 37 and 41). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement in order to provide the functionality of HTTP request protocols as taught by Kopf. One would have been motivated to provide this functionality because it provides an established system of accessing/sending information improving overall operability.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niwamoto et al. (“Niwamoto” 7631197 B2), Arling et al. (“Arling” 20050097618 A1) and Wang (729160 B1) in further view of Yuh et al. (“Yuh” 7093003 B2).
Claim 7: Niwamoto, Arling and Wang disclose a method as recited in claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the graphical user interface page having the activatable link is provided to the input device by a network server device.
Niwamoto discloses pulling information from the internet (web server) however does not disclose that graphical user interface is provided from the server. Therefore Yuh is provided because it discloses providing a graphical user interface through the server (Column 1, Lines 55-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement in order to provide a graphical user interface from a server to the gateway device of the modified Niwamoto. One would have been motivated to provide the information from a server because this provides the system with a larger resource to pull data and supply information about a device.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered.
First, it is still believed to be reasonable that data could be distributed across multiple files or a single file, this would be obvious to try.
As previously stated Arling provides “The data elements 121a, 122a, and 123a may be saved in any known format,”. Additionally, the XML file (interpreted as a single file) provided by Arling utilizes UPnP specification which captures code data and command data. This understanding is based on the features provided in Figure 2:123a and Paragraphs 30 and 32 (source/device, output, and media).
Now with the incorporation of Wang a functionality for providing a single XML file with the required features is more clearly captured. The UPnp data provide in Arling could reasonably be provided in the XML formatting disclosed by Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20060129694 A1 Figure 9
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148 4-1-2026