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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/09/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to drawings previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 12/08/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth 35 USC § 102 rejections, however new 35 § USC 103 rejections have been set forth as necessitated by amendment.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phang (US 2017/0180777) in view of Kim (US 2021/0329118 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20 Phang teaches a first electronic device, comprising: circuitry (Figs. 1, 3A & 3B, paragraphs [0008], [0011], [0020]) configured to:
receive a first user input indicative of at least one control command to operate a second electronic device associated with the first electronic device (Figs. 1, 5A-18, paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0015], [0016]), wherein
the at least one control command corresponds to a request for set of changes in values of a plurality of functional parameters of the second electronic device (Fig. 13B, paragraphs [0058], [0059], [0061], [0097], [0098], [0208], [0209] [0214]), and
the set of changes corresponds to an update of values of at least two functional parameters of the plurality of functional parameters (fig. 6B, 11A, paragraphs [0139]-[0141], [0126] – describes opening menus and scrolling through them, these functions update multiple functional parameters, such as the identification information of the displayed broadcast channels described in fig 6B and paragraphs [0139]-[0141])
determine the set of changes in the values of the at least two functional parameters, based on the received user input (paragraphs [0010],[0011], [0059], [0061], [0095], [0097]-[0099], [0211], [0212] – describes determining change in channel, volume, input mode, etc. which is changes to at least two functional parameters. Additionally describes updating two functional parameters of volume and mute/audible mode which, while related, are not the same.);
control an operation of the second electronic device based on the determined, set of changes in the values of the one or more functional parameters (Fig. 13B #1301 paragraphs [0208], [0211]-[0213]); and
control, at least one of the first electronic device or the second electronic device, to render a first operational preview associated with the determined set of changes, wherein the first operational preview is rendered based on the control of the operation of the second electronic device (Figs. 13B & 14B, paragraph [0020], [0021], [0027], [0213], [0214]);
control the second electronic device to update the values of the at least two functional parameters, wherein the values of the at least two functional parameters are updated based on the received first user input and the render of the first operational preview (fig. 6B, 11A, paragraphs [0139]-[0141], [0126] – describes opening menus and scrolling through them, these functions update multiple functional parameters based on the single inputs of opening the menu and scrolling, and render menus which are analogous to an operational preview).
Phang fails to explicitly teach
the set of changes corresponds to a concurrent update of values; and
control the second electronic device to concurrently update the values of two functional parameters.
However, Kim teaches the set of changes corresponds to a concurrent update of values; and
control the second electronic device to concurrently update the values of two functional parameters.
(paragraphs [0117], [0181]) Kim describes setting a value of a component corresponding to a control item’s function. Kim goes on to further suggest executing the described function in parallel, which is analogous to doing so concurrently. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to apply the teachings of Kim with Phang to concurrently update the two or more functional parameters concurrently, rather than the plurality of data information associated with a control item in order to improve processing speeds (broad motivation of parallelism obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art) and to improve the user experience.
Regarding claims 2, and 13, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 1. Phang further teaches wherein the plurality of functional parameters corresponds to at least one of, at least one audio parameter of a plurality of audio parameters associated with the second electronic device (paragraphs [0058], [0097], [0098], [0102], [0208], [0209] – volume), or at least one media parameter of a plurality of media parameters associated with the second electronic device (figs 15A & 15B, paragraphs [0058], [0059], [0230], [0236] – broadcast channel is analogous to media parameter).
Regarding claim 3, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 2. Kim further teaches wherein the at least one display parameter corresponds to at least one of:
a brightness parameter associated with the second device, or a resolution parameter associated with the second device (paragraph [0110]). Kim describes adjusting brightness or resolution of an external device. Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of controlling an external display device. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Phang to allow for the adjustment of display parameters such as resolution or brightness. The motivation to make this addition would be to improve the user experience by allowing for a greater degree of customization (these display parameters are adjusted automatically in Phang).
Regarding claim 4, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 2. Phang further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to control play of audio data on the second electronic device (paragraphs [0070], [0216], [0217], [0239], [0234], [0245]), and
the at least one audio parameter corresponds to a volume level of the played audio data (paragraphs [0047], [0058], [0097], [0098], [0102], [0208], [0209]).
Regarding claim 6, and 14, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 1. Phang further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the second electronic device to render an on-screen display (OSD) menu on the second electronic device (Figs. 13B, 14A & 14B, paragraphs [0184]-[0186], [0212]), and the OSD menu corresponds to changes of the at least two functional parameters (Figs. 11A. 11B, 13B #1302, 14A & 14B, paragraphs [0184]-[0186],[0216] [0220], [0221], [0227], [0229]).
Regarding claims 7, and 15, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 6. Phang further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
receive a second user input to inactivate the rendered OSD menu on the second electronic device (paragraph [0101], [0200] – user input to return to a previous screen applies to the menu. In other words, when the menu is present and a user returns to a previous screen, the menu is inactivated); and
control, based on the received second user input, the second electronic device to inactivate the rendered OSD menu on the second electronic device (Fig. 12A, paragraphs [0101], [0199]-[0201] [0257]). Phang describes displaying and menu and when a signal is received, the display provides a the previously displayed screen, which inactivates the menu as seen in figure 12A.
Regarding claims 9, and 17, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 1. Phang further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
receive a current value of each of the at least two functional parameters (paragraphs [0090], [0101], [0135], [0212] – volume information and identification information related to volume increase are both received according to a specific signal. Additionally describes broadcast information of the current, previous or next channels.);
and control the first electronic device to render the received current value of the each of the at least two functional parameters (paragraphs [0059], [0212], [0213]),
wherein the reception of the first user input is based on the control of the first electronic device to render the received current value (paragraphs [0058], [0096]-[0099]).
Regarding claims 10, and 18, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 1. Phang further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive a current value of each of the at least two functional parameters (paragraphs [0090], [0101], [0135], [0212]); and control the first electronic device to render a second operational preview associated with the received current value of the each of the at least two functional parameters (Figs. 1, 13A, 13B, 14B, paragraphs [0183], [0212], [0214]), wherein the reception of the first user input is based on the control of the first electronic device to render the second operational preview (paragraph [0020], [0183]).
Regarding claims 11, and 19, Phang in view of Kim teaches the first electronic device according to claim 1. Phang further teaches wherein the first electronic device corresponds to a remote control device communicatively coupled to the second electronic device (paragraphs [0008], [0011]), and the second electronic device corresponds to a media playback device (paragraphs [0011], [0020]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phang in view of Lin (US 2020/0053413 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Phang teaches the first electronic device according to claim 2. Phang further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to control play of media on the second electronic device (paragraph [0107], [0108]). Phang fails to explicitly teach the at least one media parameter corresponds to at least one of a text font parameter associated with the played media, a resolution size parameter associated with the played media, a playback speed parameter associated with the played media, a temperature parameter associated with the played media, or a language associated with media played on the second electronic device.
However, Lin teaches wherein the one or more media parameters correspond to a language associated with media played on the second electronic device (paragraph [0003]). Lin describes common features of remote controls in prior art, one of these common features being language selection. Lin is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of remote controls. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Lin and Phang by specifying the ability of language selection in order to implement functionality which is standard in the art and may enhance user experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 13-15 that Kim does not teach a concurrent update of values. Examiner does not find this argument. Applicant states “Kim, at best, merely describes receiving data information including multiple control items and displaying a setting window to control an external device” (Emphasis added by examiner, not Applicant’s original emphasis). Applicant supports their argument that this is the extent of Kim’s teachings with support from paragraphs [0012] and [0117]. Applicant’s argument fails to argue against the Examiner’s description of the cited document and the cited paragraph [0181] of Kim which importantly suggests conducting operations in parallel. Because applicant has conceded the reference controls an external device with information of multiple control items, because Kim teaches updating a value, and Applicant fails to provide an argument against Kim’s suggestion of parallel execution for this process, Examiner maintains the position that Kim teaches a concurrent update of values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gul Agha; Peter Wegner; Akinori Yonezawa, "Monitoring Concurrent Object-Based Programs," in Research Directions in Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming , MIT Press, 2003, pp.479-509. Gul describes concurrent updating of multiple values associated with an object.
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 Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights