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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/20/2026 has been entered.
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 18-21 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 18 recites the limitation "the non-media device" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the automation device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravi et al. (US 2013/0144915 A1), hereinafter “Ravi”.
As per claim 18, Ravi teaches a method comprising:
“determining a plurality of mobile devices within a premises, wherein the plurality of mobile devices are associated with a plurality of persons” at [0060]-[0072] and Figs. 3-5;
(Ravi teaches determining a plurality of portable devices within the perceiving range of the media system 100)
“determining, based on the plurality of mobile devices, a profile associated with the plurality of persons” at [0085] and Figs. 4-5;
(Ravi teaches the profile selection module 206 selects a profile based on one or more individuals identified by the individual identifier module 202. For example, if the individual identifier module 202 identifies individual ‘12’ and ‘34’ as within a perceiving range, the profile selection module 206 may select the profile having the profile ID ‘cd’)
“determining a current device setting for a home automation device within the premises” at [0084], [0090]-[0093];
(Ravi teaches the media system 100 includes the media control module 208 which control media that is available for selection based on media usage information of a profile and/or content restriction rules of a profile identified by the profile selection module 206. A current content restriction rules may specify that a user such as the parent individual “12” may have no restriction and can access all content)
“determining, based on the profile, a desired device setting for the non-media device” at [0084], [0090]-[0093];
(Ravi teaches the profile “ef” may be associated with a child who is not allowed to consume content above a certain rating. For example, content restriction column may include a rule defining that the profile can only be used to access television content having rating less than TV-14 (i.e., “desired device setting”))
“causing, based on the profile, an adjustment of the device setting of the non-media device from the current device setting to the desired device setting” at [0084], [0090]-[0093];
(Ravi teaches content restriction column may include a rule defining that the profile can only be used to access television content having rating less than TV-14. The media control module may then block all access to content that has a rating of TV-14 or higher)
As per claim 19, Ravi teaches a method of claim 18, further comprising “causing, based on the profile, an output of content at a display device” at [0090]-[0100].
As per claim 20, Ravi teaches the method of claim 18, wherein “the home automation device comprises one or more of a thermostat, a luminaire, a fan, a security alarm, a smart switch, or a smart device” at [0044]-[0053].
As per claim 21, Ravi teaches the method of claim 18, wherein “causing the adjustment to the device setting of the home automation device to the desired device setting comprising sending a signal to the home automation device to change the device setting of the automation device to the desired device setting, wherein the desired device setting comprises at least one of a desired temperature setting at a thermostat, a desired operational setting at an electronical receptacle, a desired operational setting at an electrical switch, a desired operational setting for a luminaire, a desired light output level for the luminaire, a desired operational setting for a fan, a desired speed level for the fan, a desired operational level for a smart speaker, a desired volume level for the smart speaker, or a desired operational level for a security system” at [0090]-[0100].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US 2013/0144915 A1), hereinafter “Ravi”, and in view of Ryu et al. (US 2014/0337697 A1), hereinafter “Ryu”.
As per claim 1, Ravi teaches a method comprising:
“receiving a request associated with a computing device for outputting content” at [0045]-[0047] and Figs. 1A-B, 3;
(Ravi teaches receiving a request to play media content by the media player 102)
“determining, based on the request
(Ravi teaches a plurality of individuals associated with a plurality of portable electronic devices. An individual identifier module 202 may sense each time a specific device comes within range of a profile management apparatus 108 or observation device 106 and identify that a specific individual is within a perceiving range)
“determining, based on the plurality of mobile devices, one or more profiles associated with the plurality of persons” at [0085] and Figs. 4-5;
(Ravi teaches the profile selection module 206 selects a profile based on one or more individuals identified by the individual identifier module 202. For example, if the individual identifier module 202 identifies individual ‘12’ and ‘34’ as within a perceiving range, the profile selection module 206 may select the profile having the profile ID ‘cd’)
“causing, based on the one or more profiles, an output of a content recommendation” at [0096].
(Ravi teaches the media control module 208 provides suggestions for media content based on the selected profile)
Ravi does not explicitly teach “determining a location of the computing device” nor “determining…based on the determined location of the computing device, a plurality of mobile devices proximate to the computing device” as claimed. However, Ryu teaches at [0124]-[0128] and Fig 5 a method of searching for the second device 2000 located near the first device 1000, based on a GPS value including the steps of determining a location of the first device 1000 based on GPS value and determining a plurality of second devices 2000 proximate to the first device based on the location of the first device 1000 and the second device 2000. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ryu with Ravi’s teaching in order to determine “whether the second device 2000 is located near the first device 1000” based on the location of the GPS location of the first and second devices, as suggested by Ryu at [0128].
As per claim 2, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: wherein “the request associated with the computing device comprises one or more of a request to turn on a display device, a search request, a query, or a request for a content item” at [0045]-[0047] and Figs. 1A-B, 3.
As per claim 3, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: wherein “the plurality of persons comprises a first person and a second person, wherein the first person resides at a first residence and wherein the second person is a visitor to the first residence” at [0082].
As per claim 4, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: wherein “determining the one or more profiles comprises: determining an identifier for each mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices; and determining, based on the identifier for each mobile device of the plurality of mobile device, the one or more profiles” at [0071]-[0081] and Figs. 4-5
As per claim 5, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “receiving information associated with each of a plurality of devices connected to the network; determining, based on the information associated with each of the plurality of devices connected to the network, the plurality of mobile devices located proximate to the computing device” at [0071]-[0081] and Figs. 4-5
As per claim 6, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 5 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: wherein “the information comprises one or more of a signal-to-noise ratio, a quality of service, a signal strength, or an indicator of an antenna of a network device receiving a signal from the respective device of the plurality of devices” at [0071]-[0081] and Figs. 4-5.
As per claim 7, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: wherein “causing the output of the content recommendation comprises sending an indication of the content recommendation to one of a display device or a downstream computing device” at [0096].
As per claim 8, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “sending, to a network device, a request for information associated with devices connected to a network; and receiving the information associated with each of a plurality of devices connected to the network, wherein the plurality of mobile devices proximate to the computing device is determined based on the information” at [0071]-[0081] and Figs. 4-5
As per claim 9, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 8 discussed above. Ryu also teaches: “determining a first portion of the plurality of devices are stationary devices and determining a second portion of the plurality of devices are mobile devices” at [0103].
As per claim 10, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “determining, based on the plurality of mobile devices, that the profile associated with the plurality of mobile devices does not exist; and generating the profile associated with the plurality of mobile devices” at [0074]-[0075].
As per claim 11, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “causing, based on the profile associated with the plurality of mobile devices, an adjustment of a setting of a device” at [0096]-[0098].
As per claim 12, Ravi teaches a method comprising:
“receiving a request associated with a computing device for outputting content” at [0044]-[0047] and Figs. 1A-B, 3;
(Ravi teaches the media system 100 may be used to provide media content such as TV content, movies and or music on one or more speakers or display screen)
“determining,
(Ravi teaches a plurality of individuals associated with a plurality of portable electronic devices. An individual identifier module 202 may sense each time a specific device comes within range of a profile management apparatus 108 or observation device 106 and identify that a specific individual is within a perceiving range)
“determining, based on the plurality of mobile devices, a first profile associated with a first person of the plurality of persons and a second profile associated with a second person of the plurality of persons” at [0076]-[0085] and Figs. 4-5;
(Ravi teaches the profile selection module 206 selects a profile based on one or more individuals identified by the individual identifier module 202. For example, individual 12 is associated with profile ‘ab’, individual 34 is associated with profile ‘ef’)
“generating a profile for the first person and the second person, wherein the profile is associated with one or more content preferences indicated in the first profile and the second profile” at [0078]-[0087] and Figs. 4-5.
(Ravi teaches generating profile ‘cd’ which indicates that individual ‘12’ and individual ‘34’ sometimes watch TV or consume content together, wherein the profile ‘cd’ is associated with content preferences indicated in the first profile ‘ab’ and the second profile ‘ef’)
Ravi does not explicitly teach “determining a location of the computing device” nor “determining…based on the determined location of the computing device, a plurality of mobile devices proximate to the computing device” as claimed. However, Ryu teaches at [0124]-[0130] and Fig 5 a method of searching for the second device 2000 located near the first device 1000, based on a GPS value including the steps of determining a location of the first device 1000 based on GPS value and determining a plurality of second devices 2000 proximate to the first device based on the location of the first device 1000 and the second device 2000. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ryu with Ravi’s teaching in order to determine “whether the second device 2000 is located near the first device 1000” based on the location of the GPS location of the first and second devices, as suggested by Ryu at [0128].
As per claim 13, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 12 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “causing, based on the one or more content preferences associated with the profile for the first person and the second person, an output of a recommendation of content” at [0096].
As per claim 14, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 12 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: wherein “the profile for the first person and the second person comprises content preference in both the profile for the first person and the profile for the second person” at [0078]-[0087].
As per claim 15, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 12 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “causing, based on the profile associated with the plurality of mobile devices, an adjustment of a setting of a device at the location of the computing device” at [0097]-[0100].
As per claim 16, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 12 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “determining the first profile comprises: determining an identifier for a first mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices; and determining, based on the identifier for the first mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices, the first profile” at [0071]-[0081] and Figs. 4-5.
As per claim 17, Ravi and Ryu teach the method of claim 12 discussed above. Ravi also teaches: “receiving information associated with each of a plurality of devices connected to a network; determining, based on the information associated with each of the plurality of devices connected to the network, the plurality of mobile devices located proximate to the computing device” at [0071]-[0081] and Figs. 3-5
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 18-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully travers Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claims 18-21, Applicant argued that “Ravi teaches a media control module that determines which media content to suggest based on one or more selected user profile. However, Ravi fails to teaches or suggest “determining the current device setting for a device within the premises”. On the contrary, Ravi teaches at [0084], [0090]-[0093] the media system 100 includes the media control module 208 which control media that is available for selection based on media usage information of a profile and/or content restriction rules of a profile identified by the profile selection module 206. “the media control module 208 may control available media based on a currently selected profile”. A current content restriction rules associated with a currently selected profile may specify that a user such as the parent individual “12” having profile “ab” may have no restriction and can access all contents on the media system 100. Ravi teaches a child individual “34 having profile “ef” may be associated with a child who is not allowed to consume content above a certain rating. For example, content restriction column for the child “34” may include a rule defining that the profile can only be used to access television content having rating less than TV-14 (i.e., “desired device setting”). When the media system 100 detects the child “34” within the premises, based on the profile “ef” associated with the child, the media control module may then block all access (i.e., “adjustment of the device setting”) to content that has a rating of TV-14 or higher. Ravi therefore teaches that when a mobile device of a parent is within a premises, the current device setting of the media system 100 is “No restriction”. When the device of a child is within the premises, the current setting of the media system is determined and adjusted based on the content restriction rule associated with the child’s device.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Applicant argued that “Ryu fails to teach or suggest “determining, … a plurality of mobile devices proximate to the computing device” as recited in claim 1. Instead, Ryu only teaches determining if one device is near another”. On the contrary, Ryu teaches at [0130] and Fig. 5 that “the content providing server 400 may determine that a plurality of the second devices 2000 are located near the first device 1000, filter a portion of the plurality of the determined second devices 2000, and generate a list of the filtered second devices 2000”. Ryu therefore teaches determining a plurality of second devices proximate to the first device, as required by the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
836
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argued that “Ryu fails to suggest “the plurality of mobile devices are associated with a plurality of persons,” as recited in claim 1. Ryu is silent with regard to any persons being associated with the devices or Ryu”.
On the contrary, Ryu teaches at Fig. 3 each of the device 1000, 2000 is associated with a person.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the foregoing arguments, the 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections are hereby sustained.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
May 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights