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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should recite that the “monitor device is operable to control lighting.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-43 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.
Claim 24 is rejected because there is no original disclosure of “presentation of media being independent of the communication” according to the recitation of the claim as a whole.
Claim 30 is rejected because there is no original disclosure of a resource being a sensor wherein the resource is also consistent with the recitation of claim 24.
Claim 41 is rejected because the original disclosure does not teach a resource that meets the limitations of claim 24 and wherein the resource is operable to monitor one or more of temperature, gas, smoke, motion, humidity, and air quality.
Claim 42 is rejected because the original disclosure does not teach a resource that meets the limitations of claim 24 and wherein the resource is operable to determine a user location.
Claim 43 is rejected because the original disclosure does not teach a resource that meets the limitations of claim 24 and wherein the monitor device is operable to identify a media output device of the media presentation device with which to provide a user output based at least in part on the user location.
Claims 25-43 are further rejected for incorporating the issues of the claims on which they each depend.
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 24-43 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 24 is indefinite because it recites that “presentation of media is independent of communication”. However, the media presentation device is operable to present media and the media presentation device is configured for communication via the resource. The presentation of media can’t be said to be “independent” of communication if they are both performed with the same media presentation device. Accordingly, the recitation of that “the presentation of media is independent of communication” raises more questions about what the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention than how much it limits the subject matter.
Claims 25-43 are further rejected for incorporating the issues of the claims on which they each depend.
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.
Claim(s) 24-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell (US 20130173064, IDS 7/25/23).
Regarding claim 24, Fadell teaches a system, the system comprising: a media presentation device operable to present media (wherein the “digital appliance” can be a smartphone, [0051]; smartphones inherently present media; alternatively the presentation device can be interpreted as the smart phone screen only); and a monitor device operably coupled to the media presentation device (VCSU senses non-HVAC related event, [0051]; providing alarms, alerts, or other information to the user on their digital appliance (and/or a user designee such as a home security service or the local police department) based on VSCU-sensed non-HVAC related events, [0051]), wherein: the media presentation device is configured for communication via a resource of the media presentation device (smartphone inherently has loudspeaker, [0051]), the monitor device is configured for communication via the resource to utilizer the resource via the media presentation device (VCSU can send alarm to user on their digital appliance, [0051]; alternatively, the resource can be considered the smart phone microphone, [0051]), and the presentation of media is independent of the communication between the monitor device and the media presentation device via the resource (the alert is provided by the digital appliance/smart phone but the presentation of media can be said to be the output of audio, images, or video on the smartphone, [0051]; in that way, audio content listened to on the smart phone can be said to be independent of an audible alarm output by the smartphone even though both use the smart phone loudspeaker “resource”; alternatively, the media presentation can be considered images or video on the smart phone screen).
While Fadell does not explicitly state that the smartphone has loudspeakers to output the explicitly disclosed alarm or alert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an audio alert through speakers would have been a suitable solution since an alarm in the context of a digital device would be most likely construed as something that makes sound and at minimum a vibration. Accordingly, while it may not inherently be a loudspeaker, it would have been immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a smart phone might have a speaker and that the alarm could make use of the speaker as a matter of common sense in interpreting the explicit teachings of the prior art reference.
Regarding claim 25, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the monitor device is operable to monitor security (VSCU-sensed non-HVAC related events (e.g., an intruder alert as sensed by the VSCU's multi-sensor technology), [0051]).
Regarding claim 26, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the monitor device comprises one or more security devices (VSCU-sensed non-HVAC related events (e.g., an intruder alert as sensed by the VSCU's multi-sensor technology), [0051]).
Regarding claim 27, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the monitor device is operable control lighting (thermostat 1800 can control the lighting of its LCD display, [0198]; "thermostat" and "VSCU unit" may be seen as generally interchangeable for the contexts of HVAC control of an enclosure, [0166]).
Regarding claim 28, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the monitor device is operable to control temperature (thermostat inherently regulates temperature, [0198]; see wording of [0166] that Fadell intends the thermostat to control temperature; "thermostat" and "VSCU unit" may be seen as generally interchangeable for the contexts of HVAC control of an enclosure, [0166]).
Regarding claim 29, Fadell teaches he system of claim 24, wherein the monitor device comprises one or more thermostats (thermostat, [0166]; "thermostat" and "VSCU unit" may be seen as generally interchangeable for the contexts of HVAC control of an enclosure, [0166]).
Regarding claim 30, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource comprises a sensor (inherent smart phone microphone, [0051]).
Regarding claim 31, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource comprises a media output device (inherent smart phone loudspeaker, [0051]).
Regarding claim 32, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource is within a loudspeaker enclosure (smart phones can obviously be loudspeaker enclosures as a matter of common sense in interpreting the meaning of the prior art, [0051]; that is, one of ordinary skill in the art reading a disclosure written around 2011 or 2012 such as Fadell would have immediately envisaged a smart phone that constitutes a loudspeaker enclosure).
Regarding claim 33, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource is operable to provide an output to a user (inherent smart phone loudspeaker, [0051]).
Regarding claim 34, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource is operable to obtain a user input (inherent smart phone microphone, [0051]).
Regarding claim 35, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the media presentation device comprises one or more loudspeakers operable to output speech audio (smart phone capable of outputting alarm, [0051]; obviously could have loudspeakers if disclosure is interpreted through the eyes of one having ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 36, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein a device is operable to control the media presentation device (obvious that smartphone would have keyboard, either physical or virtual to control media output on the device as would have been immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art, [0051]).
Regarding claim 37, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein an external device is operable to control the monitor device (When the VSCU unit is connected to the internet via a home network, such as through IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) connectivity, additional capabilities provided according to one or more embodiments include, but are not limited to: […]; receiving user control commands from the user's computer, network-connected television, smart phone, or other stationary or portable data communication appliance (hereinafter collectively referenced as the user's "digital appliance"); providing an interactive user interface to the user through their digital appliance, [0051]; "thermostat" and "VSCU unit" may be seen as generally interchangeable for the contexts of HVAC control of an enclosure, [0166]).
Regarding claim 38, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the media presentation device is operable to communicate a condition of a sensor (smart phone output of VSCU-sensed non-HVAC related events (e.g., an intruder alert as sensed by the VSCU's multi-sensor technology), [0051]).
Regarding claim 39, Fadell teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the sensor comprises one or more of: a temperature sensor, a gas sensor, a smoke sensor, and a motion detector (motion sensor 1830, [0167]).
Regarding claim 40, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource comprises a microphone (resource can be considered the smart phone microphone, [0051]).
Regarding claim 41, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource is operable to monitor one or more of temperature, gas, smoke, motion, humidity, and air quality (motion sensing for occupancy detection, [0168]).
Regarding claim 42, Fadell teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the resource is operable to determine a user location within a premises based on one or more sensors integrated with or communicatively coupled to the media presentation device (motion sensing for occupancy detection, [0168]).
Regarding claim 43, Fadell teaches the system of claim 42, wherein the monitor device is operable to identify a media output device of the media presentation device with which to provide a user output based at least in part on the user location (proximity sensing is useful for enhancing the user experience by being "ready" for interaction as soon as, or very soon after the user is ready to interact with the thermostat, [0168]) and a corresponding media presentation zone of the premises (zone having the radius of 1 meter around the thermostat).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are unclear as to where it is disclosed in the original disclosure that the presentation of media is independent of the communication between the monitor device ands the media presentation device via the resource.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, it is not clear how the claim amendments demonstrate that the original disclosure contains a description of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Faddell does not teach the claimed separation and independence of media presentation; however, the claims do not mention separation and it is unclear what the nature is of the independence of media presentation that is alleged to differentiate form Fadell.
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 Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights