DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----7/24/2025 for application 18/267,993. Claim 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 17 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1, 3 – 7, 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 16 are amended.
Claim 2, 10, 13 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Argument
Regarding claim interpretation under 112(f), applicant replace the claimed limitation “identification means” to “identification module” in Claim 1 without any structure. According to MPEP 2181.I.A, “The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): ‘mechanism for,’ ‘module for,’ ‘device for,’ ‘unit for,’ ‘component for,’ ‘element for,’ ‘member for,’ ‘apparatus for,’ ‘machine for,’ or ‘system for.’” Simply replace the term “means” with “module” or “system” without providing the structure in the claim do not overcome the claim interpretation under 112(f). The term “machine learning system” in the claim does not provide structure as argued in page 4. No further electronic device nor software are mentioned in the claim. Instead, the specification consistently describe a preferred machine learning system as a neural network in page 6, 8, 9, 12, 15. Thus, examiner maintains claim interpretation on “identification module” and “machine learning system”.
Regarding claim rejection under 112b for Claim 4, examiner maintains rejection for the same reason as mentioned above.
Regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 section, examiner withdrawn 101 rejection based on the amendment. However, the amended term in Claim 15 “non-transitory computer program product” is not described in the specification, is not a commonly used term in the industry, thus, the term is interpreted as software sored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim 16 is objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15.
Regarding prior art rejection, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Keller, US20160073151 in view of Hall, US20150348401.
Regarding the BRI of conditional statements “in an initialization phase”, applicant stated that “ this is not conditional or optional language, but a clear temporal modifier that limits the context in which the claimed functionality is carried out.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s attention is direct to MPEP 2111.04 II contingent limitation: “For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” In this case, at least the following recited actions in Claim 1 do not require the condition “in an initialization phase”: maintain remote control information, send remote control signal, retrieve remote control information. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires the above mentioned actions and do not require the recited actions under “in a initialization phase” clause as point out in MPEP2111.04 II.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation is:
“identification module configured to” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at page 3 “a camera”, page 9 “neural network” (software logic) of the instant application. Since camera and neural network are two very different embodiment, the term is interpreted based on its function, a piece of logic to carry out the identification function.
“machine learning system … configured to” in Claim 4. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at page 9 “neural network”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites limitation “the remote control command”, however the claim recites “at least one remote control command”. It is not clear which one in the at least one remote control command it is referring to. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as “the at least one remote control command”. Claim 1 further recites “the candidate RCO”, however the claim recites “at least one candidate RCO”. It is not clear if the claim is intended to refer one or more than one candidate RCO. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as “one candidate RCO from the at least one candidate RCO”. Claim 1 further recite “the candidate remote control information” and “the candidate remote control command”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
In addition, Claim 1 recite “the RCO” in line 10 however it is not clear if the RCO is refer to the “selected RCO” in line 7 or the RCO in line 2. It is also not clear if the RCO in line 2 and 7 are referring to the same RCO.
Claims 4 recites the limitation of “a machine learning system … is configured to maintain a trained model”. However, the claim invokes 112f and the machine learning system is described as a neural network. It is not clear how a neural network can maintain a trained model. Based on the context of the claim, the limitation is interpreted as a computing system that maintains a trained model.
Claim 9 is depending on Claim 2 which has been canceled. Thus there is insufficient antecedent basis. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as depending on Claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation of “non-transitory computer program product” and is not clear. The term “non-transitory” seems to describe storage medium however the claimed “product” does not explicitly include such storage medium. It is not clear the intention of the amendment since Claim 16 also claims computer readable medium. For examination purpose, Claim 15 is interpreted as having a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer program product.
All the depending claims of the above claims are rejected with same reason including Claim 3 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 17.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 8 – 9, 12 and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (hereinafter Keller), US20160073151, in view of Hall et al., (hereinafter Hall), US20150348401.
Keller teaches a universal remote controller device having database that stores identity and control code (0019) of plurality of devices and performs initialization steps to identify and verify the connected device (Fig. 2, Fig. 3). Hall also teaches an universal remote controller which specifically control self-propelled home appliances (Fig. 41).
Regarding Claim 1, Keller discloses: A system for controlling a remote controllable object, RCO, comprising
a database configured to maintain remote control information regarding at least one RCO, wherein the remote control information comprises at least one remote control command of the at least one RCO (Keller, 0002, “identify the device (RCO) through software and/or database lookup tables”, 0019, “If recognition is accomplished via the external database 220, the RC control code (remote control information/remote control command) is programmed for the device 210”);
a remote control transmitter unit configured to send at least one remote control signal comprised in the remote control command to a selected RCO of the at least one RCO via a remote control interface (0015, “a transmitter 110 (e.g., infrared (IR) and/ or radio frequency (RF)).”; );
a first controller operationally connected to the database, wherein the first controller is configured to retrieve the remote control information for the RCO from the database and is configured to send remote control information via a first communication interface to a second controller (0012, “by a plurality of individual processors, Some of which can be shared … explicit use of the term ‘processor’ or ‘controller’ should not be construed to refer exclusively to hardware capable of executing Software, and can implicitly include, without limitation, digital signal processor (“DSP) hardware, read-only memory (“ROM) for storing Software, random access memory (RAM), and non-Volatile storage”; i.e., Keller use plurality of processors/software processes (first controller, second control) to perform disclosed tasks. The communication between the plurality of processors is the first communication interface.);
wherein the second controller is operationally connected to the remote control transmitter unit, and is configured to receive the remote control information from the first controller via the first communication interface, and is configured to send at least one remote control signal based on the remote control information to the RCO via the remote control interface (refer to the mapping above & 0012, “intended to encompass both structure and functional equivalents”; i.e., separate processes for processes (processor, second controller) that controls the IR/RF transmitter signal and the processes (processor, first controller) the handle the identification/search of device database. Examiner notes that Keller teaches all the required element/function, the separation or integration of electronic module to perform task is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04 V.B));
an identification module configured to identify at least one RCO; and an action verification module configured to detect an action of the RCO (0020 & fig. 3, “the RC is placed such that the image device points towards the TV set 302. The RC goes through all codes 304 available until the TV turns on 306 (recognized by the image device) 308, 310 followed by checking further typical codes like, for example, turning off, ‘channel up/down’ 312, brightness control etc. automatically. If the display reacts 314, the code set is detected 316. If not, another code is tried 318 until the display reacts 314.”, i.e., the process and the camera that identify the TV turns on is the identification module that identifies the device; the following process and the camera that verifies the following actions such as ‘channel up/down’ and brightness control is the verification module that verifies the device and the correct code set is selected),
wherein the first controller is operationally connected to the identification module and the second controller is operationally connected to the action verification module (refer to the mapping above, the first controller/processes works with database and identifying the device, thus connected. The second controller/processes works with the verification of the actions and thus connected),
wherein in an initialization phase the first controller is configured
a) to identify at least one candidate RCO via the identification module, b) to retrieve the remote control information for the candidate RCO from the database, c) to send the candidate remote control information or at least one candidate remote control command comprised therein to the second controller (refer to the mapping above & Fig. 3, 0020, the system transmit different code until the system identify that the TV/device response to the transmitted signal. Examiner notes that “in an initialization phase” recites a conditional statement. However the claim does not require the condition to happen. Thus, within BRI, the claimed actions are not required by the claim.),
wherein in the initialization phase the second controller is configured
d) to send at least one remote control signal based on the candidate remote control command to the RCO via the remote control sending unit, e) to verify an action of the RCO in response to the candidate remote control command via the action verification means, and f) to send information regarding a verified action to the first controller (refer to the mapping above, fig. 3 & 0020, once system identify that the TV/device turns on, a verification process starts to verify by sending turn off signal, channel up/down signal or brightness signal and verify the response of the TV/device through camera. Examiner notes that “in an initialization phase” recites a conditional statement. However the claim does not require the condition to happen. Thus, within BRI, the claimed actions are not required by the claim.) and
wherein the action verification module is an inertial measurement unit or a camera of a smart device configured to detect a change of position of the RCO (refer to the mapping above & 0020, the verification process/device include a camera).
Keller does not explicitly teach:
controlling a movement of a remote controllable self-propelled object
detect a change of position of the RCO.
Hall, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
controlling a movement of a remote controllable self-propelled object; detect a change of position of the RCO (Hall, fig. 28, 0101 “user's mobile device, such as a tablet or smart phone”, i.e., Hall teaches using smart device as universal remote control that controls motorized blinds which moves/self-propels and other house appliances Fig. 27 – Fig. 41, Keller teaches using smart device as universal remote control and the steps of initialize/pairing the device. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitation. Examiner further notes that it is commercially available and commonly known feature by the filing date of the instant application that many motorized blinds/appliances that confirms pairing of the remote by movement/jogs of its moving parts. Such feature can be easily found online for example Decorquip, “Pairing a remote and initial settings”, youtube.com, 2020; and Norman USA, “How to program Motorized Soluna Roller Shades”, youtube.com 2016, TechTipsForWindows, “How to link the smart hub to your motorized shades“, youtube.com 2020. Thus, the combination has reasonable likelihood of success.).
Keller and Hall both teach universal remote controller implementation for electronic devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the control application of moving/self-propelling automation devices in the system of Kelle’s teaching to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to enables control over “large number of different devices” (0187).
Regarding Claim 3, Keller and Hall combination renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: the initialization phase comprises a heuristic search, wherein the second controller is configured to subsequently send all possible remote control signals to the RCO via the remote control transmitter unit and wherein the second controller is further configured to verify an action of the RCO via the action verification module, and to send information regarding a verified action to the first controller (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Keller, 0020, The step that RC goes through all codes available is a heuristic search. The RC codes are sent through the transmitter. The following step verifies response/action of the device.).
Regarding Claim 5, Keller and Hall combination renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: wherein in an operational phase the first controller is configured a) to receive a command input from a user bl) to determine one or more remote control commands corresponding to the drive command and to send the one or more remote control commands to the second controller, or b2) to send the drive command to the second controller, wherein the second controller is configured to send the one or more remote control commands corresponding to the drive command; and wherein in the operational phase the second controller is configured c) to send at least one remote control signal corresponding to the remote control command to the RCO via the remote control transmitter unit (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Keller 0018 “normal operational control mode (operation phase) (e.g., RC controlling mode as opposed to RC programming mode)”, i.e., under regular use, the remote control perform multiple processes including taking user input, match user input to RC control code and send RC control code through the transmitter).
Regarding Claim 8, , Keller and Hall combination renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: wherein the remote control signal is a radio control signal (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Keller 0015, “infrared (IR) and/ or radio frequency (RF)”).
Regarding Claim 9, Keller and Hall combination renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: wherein the identification module comprises the camera of the smart device (refer to the mapping in Claim 1, the identification process uses/includes the camera of the smart device).
Regarding Claim 12, 15, 16, these are the corresponding method claim, computer program product claim and computer readable medium claim of Claim 1. These claims are rejected with the same reason.
Regarding Claim 14, it is the corresponding method claim of Claim 5. Claim 14 is rejected with same reason.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (hereinafter Keller), US20160073151, in view of Hall et al., (hereinafter Hall), US20150348401 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al., (hereinafter Kim), US20210072877.
Regarding Claim 4, Keller and Hall renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: a machine learning system connected to the database and to the first controller, wherein the machine learning system is configured to maintain a trained model for identification of candidate RCOs.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a machine learning system connected to the database and to the first controller, wherein the machine learning system is configured to maintain a trained model for identification of candidate RCOs (Kim, 0079, “The augmented reality-based device control apparatus 100 may recognize the device 300 to be controlled using an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. The augmented reality-based device control apparatus 100 may use an artificial intelligence model which is provided after being trained by the learning device 200 (machine learning system). The artificial intelligence model may be stored in the learning device 200 or in the augmented reality-based device control apparatus 100.” 0157, “The terminal 100 may be implemented as a stationary terminal and a mobile terminal, such as a mobile phone”).
Keller (in view of Hall) and Kim both teach universal remote controller implementation for electronic devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include Kim’s image recognition initialization process in the system of Keller (in view of Hall)’s teaching to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to benefit from “intelligent human behaviors such as reasoning, learning, self-improving and the like” (Kim 0080).
Claim(s) 6 – 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (hereinafter Keller), US20160073151, in view of Hall et al., (hereinafter Hall), US20150348401 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopez Taboada et al., (hereinafter Lopez), US20120216216.
Regarding Claim 6, Keller and Hall renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: a first unit comprising the first controller unit and the identification module; and a second unit comprising the remote control transmitter unit and the action verification module (refer to the mapping in Claim 1. & Keller 0012 the first unit/processes/processor include identification process, the second unit/processes/processor include action verification process );
The combination does not explicitly teach:.
wherein the first unit and the second unit are connected via the first communication interface and the first communication interface is a standardized communication interface.
Lopez, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
wherein the first unit and the second unit are connected via the first communication interface and the first communication interface is a standardized communication interface (Lopez, 0059, “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, and without limitation, the proposed method for transferring messages between two processes … standard JVM 11, and uses a messaging API for invoking the communication … using MPI”; 0013, “Message Passing Interface (MPI) communication”, MPI is standardized communication interface; i.e., the communication between processes/processors uses standardized protocol and interface).
Keller (in view of Hall) and Lopez both teach multi processes/processors application for electronic devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include details of the intra process/processor communication in the system of Keller (in view of Hall)’s teaching to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to increase efficiency (Lopez 0046).
Regarding Claim 7, Keller, Hall and Lopez renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 6. The combination further teach: the first unit is provided at or integrated in the smart user device; and/or wherein the second unit is suitable to be provided at or to be integrated in the RCO (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Keller 0015, “the RC can be a smartphone with RC capable software, etc.)”).
Regarding Claim 11, Keller and Hall renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: : a first unit comprising the first controller unit, the identification module; and the action verification module; and a second unit comprising the remote control transmitter unit (refer to the mapping in Claim 1. & Keller 0012 the first unit/processes/processor include identification process and action verification process, the second unit/processes/processor takes care of the signal transmission. Examiner notes that Keller teaches all the required element/function, the separation or integration of electronic module to perform task is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04 V.B));
wherein the identification module and the action verification module use images of the camera, wherein the first unit is formed in a the smart device and the camera is a single camera of the smart device (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Keller, 0020, the identification and verification processes use same camera on a smart device.),
The combination does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first unit and the second unit are connected via the first communication interface and the first communication interface is a standardized communication interface
Lopez, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
wherein the first unit and the second unit are connected via the first communication interface and the first communication interface is a standardized communication interface (Lopez, 0059, “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, and without limitation, the proposed method for transferring messages between two processes … standard JVM 11, and uses a messaging API for invoking the communication … using MPI”; 0013, “Message Passing Interface (MPI) communication”, MPI is standardized communication interface; i.e., the communication between processes/processors uses standardized protocol and interface).
Keller (in view of Hall) and Lopez both teach multi processes/processors application for electronic devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include details of the intra process/processor communication in the system of Keller (in view of Hall)’s teaching to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to increase efficiency (Lopez 0046).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (hereinafter Keller), US20160073151, in view of Hall et al., (hereinafter Hall), US20150348401, Lopez Taboada et al., (hereinafter Lopez), US20120216216 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hardacker, US20090128392.
Regarding Claim 17, Keller, Hall and Lopez combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 6. The combination does not explicitly teach: the standardized communication interface is a WiFi connection or a Bluetooth connection.
Hardacker, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach: the standardized communication interface is a WiFi connection or a Bluetooth connection (Hardacker, 0054, “in order to assure synchronization between the two devices by providing for acknowledgements of commands and the like”; 0044, “two way communications between the TV 100 and the RC 104 is also possible and may be desirable in order to assure synchronization between the two devices by providing acknowledgement of commands and the like ”; Keller, Hall and Lopez combination teaches remote control initiation steps with identification and verification. Hardacker teaches having the verification process on the appliance device and provide acknowledgement using two way communication. In this case, the action verification module and the remote control transmitter unit are both on the RCO side. The communication between the remote and the RCO, in this case, can include Bluetooth and/or WIFI (Hall, 0133) ).
Keller (in view of Hall and Lopez) and Hardacker both teach remote control application for electronic devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further modify the system of Keller (in view of Hall and Lopez) and perform verification and acknowledgement on RCO side to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification since this “maybe desirable in order to assure synchronization between the two devices” (Hardacker 0044).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 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, HELEL ALGAHAIM can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666