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 .
This office action is in response to claims filed 05/12/2023. Claims 1-7 are pending.
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.
Claims 4-7 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.
Regarding Claim 4, line 10, “the target computer” lacks antecedent basis, as a target computer is not previously defined in the claim. In order to further examine on the merits of the claim, the examiner interprets the claim as referring to the target device previously mentioned in the limitations.
Any claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency to rejected claims.
Correction is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemberger et al. (US 11115630 B1) in view of Scott (US 6083270 A), hereinafter referred to as Lemberger and Scott, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Lemberger discloses A system for automating a process on a target device (Col. 35, Lines 33-37- In some embodiments, at least some of the aforementioned processes may be performed by the devices 1102, 1112, 1122, 1108, 1110 automatically (e.g., dynamically performed without user input). Please note that the devices performing the process automatically corresponds to Applicant’s system for automating a process on a target device.) comprising: a video capture device (Col. 39, Lines 54-57- The A/V recording and communication device 1102 may transmit an output signal 1810 (e.g., the output signal 466) that includes the captured image data 460 to the backend server(s) 1122, via the network 1106. Please note that the A/V recording and communication device 1102 corresponds to Applicant’s video capture device.) connected to a video output port of the target device (Col. 6, Lines 35-40- The network can further include or interface with any one or more of the following […] USB (Universal Serial Bus) connection. Applicant states in [0016] of the Specification an output port, such as a USB port; therefore the network using a USB connection interface corresponds to Applicant’s video output port of the target device, since the A/V recording and communication device 1102 uses the network to output.);
a host computing device configured to receive an output of the video capture device (Col. 39, Lines 54-57- The A/V recording and communication device 1102 may transmit an output signal 1810 (e.g., the output signal 466) that includes the captured image data 460 to the backend server(s) 1122, via the network 1106. Please note that the A/V recording and communication device 1102 transmitting an output signal 1810 to the backend server 1122 corresponds to Applicant’s host computing device configured to receive an output of the video capture device, as the A/V recording and communication device 1102 corresponds to the video capture device and the backend service 1122 corresponds to the host computing device.) and compare the received output to images within a stored database of images (Col. 39, Lines 62-67-As previously described, the backend server(s) 1122 may identify the particular object by comparing objects within the image data 460 to predefined objects that are stored within a database (e.g., the backend storage 1120). Please note that the backend server 1122 comparing objects within the image data 460 to predefined objects stored in a database corresponds to Applicant’s comparing received output to images stored within a stored database of images.);
Lemberger does not explicitly disclose a first intermediary board configured to convert an ASCII output from the host computing device into one or more computer-readable inputs; a second intermediary board configured to transmit the computer-readable inputs from the first intermediary board to the target device.
However, Scott discloses a first intermediary board configured to convert an ASCII output from the host computing device into one or more computer-readable inputs (Col. 7, Lines 17-20; Lines 26-27-sends device-dependent ASCII characters "up" to the accessor TAP 30, which is customized to interpret ASCII input […] causes the accessor TAP 30 to convert characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands. Please note that sending ASCII characters to the accessor TAP 30 which interprets ASCII input and converts characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands corresponds to Applicant’s first intermediary board configured to convert an ASCII output from the host computing device into one or more computer-readable inputs, as the TAP 30 corresponds to the first intermediary board, since it is known in the art that in order to perform operations such as computer character conversion, a board is required, and interpreting ASCII input to keystroke commands corresponds to Applicant’s converting ASCII output.);
a second intermediary board configured to transmit the computer-readable inputs from the first intermediary board to the target device (Col. 6, Lines 64-67-Col. 7, Line 1 - These packets are then transmitted to the target TAP 20 via the infrared beam 28.; Col. 7, Lines 6-7- The data packets sent from the accessor TAP 30 to the target TAP 20 are universal or device-independent. Please note that the accessor TAP 30 sending data packets to the target TAP 20 corresponds to transmitting the computer-readable inputs to the target device, as the data packets contain keystroke commands corresponding to computer-readable inputs, and the infrared beam 28 interfacing with accessor TAP 30 corresponds to the second intermediary board configured to transmit, as it is known in the art that sending computer data via an infrared beam requires a board.).
Lemberger and Scott are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer data transmission between devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lemberger to incorporate the teachings of Scott to modify the system with a video capture device outputting to a host computing device to contain boards converting ASCII output from the host computing device into computer-readable inputs transmitted to the target device, allowing for automated control of the target device and improving efficiency of the system, as described in Scott.
Regarding Claim 2, Lemberger-Scott as described in Claim 1, Scott further discloses wherein the computer-readable inputs comprise keystrokes (Col. 7, Lines 17-20; Lines 26-27-sends device-dependent ASCII characters "up" to the accessor TAP 30, which is customized to interpret ASCII input […] causes the accessor TAP 30 to convert characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands. Please note that the universal data packets containing keystroke commands corresponds to Applicant’s computer-readable input comprising keystrokes.).
Regarding Claim 3, Lemberger-Scott as described in Claim 1, Lemberger further discloses wherein the output of the video capture device comprises a series of images (Col. 28, Lines 17-20-The image data 460 may include still images, and/or video data that may be live video (e.g., real-time video captured by the camera 444) and/or pre-recorded images and/or video. Please note that the image data 460 including video data corresponds to Applicant’s output of the video capture device comprising a series of images, as it is known in the art that video data comprises a series of images.).
Regarding Claim 4, Lemberger discloses A method for automating a process on a target device (Col. 35, Lines 33-37- In some embodiments, at least some of the aforementioned processes may be performed by the devices 1102, 1112, 1122, 1108, 1110 automatically (e.g., dynamically performed without user input). Please note that the devices performing the process automatically corresponds to Applicant’s method for automating a process on a target device.), comprising: transmitting a image output from the target device to a host device (Col. 39, Lines 54-57- The A/V recording and communication device 1102 may transmit an output signal 1810 (e.g., the output signal 466) that includes the captured image data 460 to the backend server(s) 1122, via the network 1106. Please note that the A/V recording and communication device 1102 transmitting an output signal 1810 to the backend server 1122 including captured image data 460 corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a image output from the target device to a host device.);
comparing, on the host device, the received image output to a plurality of images from a database accessible by the host device (Col. 39, Lines 62-67-As previously described, the backend server(s) 1122 may identify the particular object by comparing objects within the image data 460 to predefined objects that are stored within a database (e.g., the backend storage 1120). Please note that the backend server 1122 comparing objects within the image data 460 to predefined objects stored in a database corresponds to Applicant’s comparing on a host device received image output to a plurality of images from a database accessible by the host device.);
upon identifying a matched image from the plurality of images which matches the received image output (Col. 39, Lines 62-67-As previously described, the backend server(s) 1122 may identify the particular object by comparing objects within the image data 460 to predefined objects that are stored within a database (e.g., the backend storage 1120), and matching the particular object within the image data 460 with one of the particular objects from the database. Please note that the backend server 1122 matching objects within the image data 460 with one of the particular objects from the database corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a matched image from the plurality of images which matches the received image output, as it matches image data from the received image output to a specific object, corresponding to a matched image, from the plurality stored in the database.),
Lemberger does not explicitly disclose sending, from the host device, one or more commands from the host device to an intermediary board; converting the commands received from the host device into a computer-readable input on the intermediary board; and sending the computer-readable input from the intermediary board to the target computer.
However, Scott discloses sending, from the host device, one or more commands from the host device to an intermediary board (Col. 6, Lines 63-64-corresponding command signals which are sent to the accessor TAP 30 via input cable 32.; Col. 7, Lines 17-20- sends device-dependent ASCII characters "up" to the accessor TAP 30, which is customized to interpret ASCII input. Please note that sending command signals and device-dependent ASCII characters to the accessor TAP 30 corresponds to Applicant’s sending commands from the host device to an intermediary board, with TAP 30 being the intermediary board, since it is known in the art that in order to perform operations such as computer command signal transmission, a board is required.);
converting the commands received from the host device into a computer-readable input on the intermediary board (Col. 7, Lines 17-20; Lines 26-27-sends device-dependent ASCII characters "up" to the accessor TAP 30, which is customized to interpret ASCII input […] causes the accessor TAP 30 to convert characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands. Please note that the TAP 30 interpreting ASCII input and converting characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands corresponds to Applicant’s intermediary board converting commands received from the host device into a computer-readable input, as the TAP 30 corresponds to the intermediary board, since it is known in the art that in order to perform operations such as computer character conversion, a board is required, and interpreting ASCII input to keystroke commands corresponds to Applicant’s converting commands into a computer-readable input.);
and sending the computer-readable input from the intermediary board to the target computer (Col. 6, Lines 64-67-Col. 7, Line 1 - These packets are then transmitted to the target TAP 20 via the infrared beam 28.; Col. 7, Lines 6-7- The data packets sent from the accessor TAP 30 to the target TAP 20 are universal or device-independent. Please note that the accessor TAP 30 sending data packets to the target TAP 20 corresponds to sending the computer-readable input from the intermediary board to the target device, as the data packets contain keystroke commands corresponding to computer-readable inputs.).
Lemberger and Scott are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer data transmission between devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lemberger to incorporate the teachings of Scott to modify the system with a video capture device outputting to a host computing device matching image output to images in a database to contain a board converting commands from the host computing device into computer-readable inputs transmitted to the target computer, allowing for automated control of the target device and improving efficiency of the system, as described in Scott.
Regarding Claim 5, Lemberger-Scott as described in Claim 4, Scott further discloses wherein the computer-readable input comprises one or more keystrokes (Col. 7, Lines 17-20; Lines 26-27-sends device-dependent ASCII characters "up" to the accessor TAP 30, which is customized to interpret ASCII input […] causes the accessor TAP 30 to convert characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands. Please note that the universal data packets containing keystroke commands corresponds to Applicant’s computer-readable input comprising one or more keystrokes.).
Regarding Claim 6, Lemberger-Scott as described in Claim 4, Scott further discloses wherein the commands comprise an ASCII input (Col. 7, Lines 17-20; Lines 26-27-sends device-dependent ASCII characters "up" to the accessor TAP 30, which is customized to interpret ASCII input […] causes the accessor TAP 30 to convert characters it receives into universal data packets containing keystroke commands. Please note that the ASCII input corresponds to Applicant’s commands comprising an ASCII input.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemberger et al. (US 11115630 B1) in view of Scott (US 6083270 A), and further in view of Saaroni et al. (US 20150007070 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lemberger, Scott, and Saaroni, respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Lemberger-Scott as described in Claim 4 further discloses from Lemberger from the plurality of images in the database (Col. 39, Lines 62-67-As previously described, the backend server(s) 1122 may identify the particular object by comparing objects within the image data 460 to predefined objects that are stored within a database (e.g., the backend storage 1120). Please note that predefined objects stored in a database corresponds to Applicant’s plurality of images in the database.)
Lemberger-Scott does not explicitly disclose wherein each image comprises one or more associated commands, wherein the command sent from the host device is chosen based on the commands associated with the matched image.
However, Saaroni discloses wherein each image comprises one or more associated commands ([0032] an automation action including or identifying an input event and associated images is defined. Please note that an input event and associated images corresponds to Applicant’s image comprising one or more associated commands, as the commands in Applicant’s system are ultimately converted to input, and in both cases the input and image are associated.),
wherein the command sent from the host device is chosen based on the commands associated with the matched image ([0060] If the user provides input (e.g., a keystroke, a mouse click, or a tap at a touch-sensitive input device) that indicates that the target should not be changed (e.g., that the image currently designated as the target should be the target), process 600 completes. In some implementations, process 600 also defines an automation action for the input event. […] automation system implementing process 600 can define an automation action for the input event which specifies the input event, the images associated with the input event, and the target. Please note that a user providing input, corresponding to Applicant’s command sent from the host device, causing an automation action which specifies the input event, associated images, and the target corresponds to Applicant’s command being chosen based on the commands associated with the matched image. This is because, as with the example cited above, there is a matched/associated image chosen based on the command sent from the host device; it would have been prior to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the Application to have reversed this process to choose a command based on a matched image, i.e., with the command as the target of the image rather than the other way around, since images are the input of the system. ).
Lemberger-Scott and Saaroni are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer data transmission between devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lemberger-Scott to incorporate the teachings of Saaroni to modify the system as described in Claim 4 to associate each image from the plurality of images in the database with commands such that the command sent from the host device is chosen based on the commands associated with the matching image, allowing for automated control of the target device via input commands and improving efficiency of the system, as described in Saaroni.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turkelson et al. (US 20210004589 A1) discloses receiving video output from a video capture feed at a host device, and comparing received images to a database to identify the image (see [0015, 0077, 0110])).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196