DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 10 FEBRUARY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “action determination component configured to”, and “IR calibration component configured to” in at least claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, paragraph 101 of the originally filed specification, describing “Action determination component may be implemented as hardware (e.g., electrical circuits), or hardware that executes one or both of software (e.g., as executed by a processor or processing device) and firmware.”, and paragraph 106 of the originally filed specification, describing “IR calibration component may be implemented as hardware (e.g., electrical circuits) and/or hardware that executes one or both of software (e.g., as executed by a processor or processing device) and firmware.”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen, US 2009/0154933 in view of Richardson, US 2013/0154812 and further in view of Woo, US 2013/0171981.
Regarding claim 1, Mortensen discloses a switching device (PDCU/DTV of a home theater network system; page 1, paragraphs 7-8, and Fig. 1, element 12), comprising: a plurality of ports (including a plurality of ports; page 1, paragraph 8, and pages 3-4, paragraph 44, and Fig. 1), at least one of the plurality of ports communicatively coupled to a first consumer electronic device (with at least one port connected to a controllable electronic device; page 1, paragraph 8, and pages 3-4, paragraph 44, and Fig. 1, elements 32-37 and 41-48);
a plurality of infrared (IR) blaster components oriented to project IR light in different directions (with multiple IR blasting/blaster components each with emitter(s) which can send signals in different directions; page 4, paragraph 47, and including a specific IR blaster; page 6, paragraph 58, and Fig. 3A, element 135, and wherein can contain multiple components; page 6, paragraph 59); and
an action determination component configured to: responsive to a detection of a triggering event (system/component can detect IR event signal from remote control; page 6, paragraphs 58 and 60, and page 7, paragraph 67), determine an action to be performed by the first consumer electronic device (translates the event into specific action(s) that specific device(s) need to take; page 7, paragraph 67, and page 12, paragraph 100); and
determine that the first consumer electronic device is controllable using IR signals (based on the type of device and the active/state of the devices, system can determine that devices are IR or other digital devices and provide to the appropriate system subcomponents for operations, i.e. such as for IR communication(s); page 7, paragraphs 67-68, and page 12, paragraph 100, and page 13, paragraph 103);
wherein each of the plurality of IR blaster components are configured to transmit a respective first IR command signal intended for the first consumer electronic device, each respective first IR command signal comprising instructions to perform the determined action (system will formulate the instruction(s) into the appropriate IR code for the device(s) and utilize the IR blaster components to transmit the messages/instructions to the device for operation by that device; page 9, paragraph 82, and page 13, paragraph 103, and including first/second, i.e. respective signal(s), during a setup period; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87, and with repetition of the transmitted message/command, i.e. each respective; page 9, paragraph 82).
While Mortensen does allude to wireless communication (page 4, paragraph 44), Mortensen does not explicitly disclose each of a plurality of IR blaster components are configured to wirelessly and simultaneously transmit.
In a related art, Richardson does disclose each of a plurality of IR blaster components are configured to wirelessly transmit a respective IR command signal intended for a first electronic device (IR Blaster, with plurality of components, transmits IR signals into communication environment, for controlling a target device; page 2, paragraph 19, and wherein wirelessly transmitting the signals; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 5, paragraph 47, and page 6, paragraph 54), and each respective first IR command signal (IR signals into communication environment, for controlling a target device; page 2, paragraph 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, combine the prior art of Mortensen and Richardson by allowing specific wireless functionality to be implemented with the already provided IR blaster disclosed in Mortensen, in order to provide an improved system and method for providing remote control generated information to a target electronic device (Richardson; page 1, paragraph 6).
Richardson in view of Mortensen does not explicitly disclose each of a plurality of IR blaster components are configured to simultaneously transmit a signal.
In a related art, Woo does disclose each of a plurality of IR blaster components are configured to simultaneously transmit a signal (IR repeater/blaster has plurality of IR components, oriented in different directions, which can simultaneously send a determined signal; page 8, paragraphs 126-127, and page 13, paragraphs 203-204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, combine the prior art of Mortensen, Richardson, and Woo by allowing specific IR blaster functionality to be implemented with the already provided IR blaster disclosed in Mortensen in view of Richardson, in order to provide an improved system and method for a digital device control system in which an IR repeater functions as a relay between the a control device and a digital device which is to be controller (Woo; page 2, paragraphs 23-24).
Regarding claim 2, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses the triggering event comprises at least one of: the switching device receiving a command via a network interface; the switching device detecting a wireless control signal sent from a remote control device; a change in a state of the first consumer electronic device; or a change in a state of a second consumer electronic device (Mortensen; event can include at least detection of wireless, i.e. IR, control from a remote control device; page 6, paragraphs 58 and 60, and page 7, paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 3, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses the action to be performed by the first consumer electronic device comprises entering a state (Mortensen; instruction can be for a device to, for instance, enter a play state; page 13, paragraph 103); and
each respective first IR command signal comprises instructions to enter the state (Mortensen; IR command(s) that are sent to the device, instruct the device to enter the state, i.e. such as to begin playback; page 13, paragraph 103). Examiners Note: While the state identified above can be a play state of a device, other states can also be considered, for instance when setting up a device for IR control, power state can be utilized as the state (page 10, paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 4, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses a state identification component configured to responsive to the transmission of each respective first IR command signal, determine that the first consumer electronic device is not in the state (Mortensen; system/component can transmit IR power command(s), i.e. each, to device(s), and can determine change in input, i.e. power state, wherein if change in power state is not detected, i.e. not in the state, next code(s) will be tried; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87);
responsive to the determination that the first consumer electronic device is not in the state, perform a corrective action (Mortensen; corrective action can be performed such as trying other codes; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 5, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses to perform the corrective action, the state identification component is further configured to recalibrate at least one IR blaster of the plurality of IR blasters (Mortensen; system/component can have at least one IR blaster component try different codes, i.e. recalibrated with different IR code transmission(s); page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 6, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo disclose each respective first IR command signal comprises a respective first IR code of a first IR codeset (Mortensen; can be a power command with at least a first IR code; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87, and wherein as part of IR code set/file; page 9, paragraphs 77-78), and to perform the corrective action, the at least one of the plurality of IR blaster components is further configured to: transmit, to the first consumer electronic device, a second IR command signal comprising a second IR code of a second IR codeset (Mortensen; can perform operations such as trying other codes; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87, and again, which are part of specific code set/file, which can include plurality, i.e. including a second; page 9, paragraphs 77-78),
wherein the state identification component is further configured to determine that the first consumer electronic device is in the state, and wherein the switching device further comprises an IR calibration component configured to associate the second IR codeset with the first consumer electronic device (Mortensen; system/component can determine that the device is in the power state based on change in input signal; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87, and can associate specific code set/file with device; page 9, paragraphs 77-78).
Regarding claim 7, Mortensen and in view of Richardson and Woo discloses the action determination component is further configured to: determine an IR codeset associated with the first consumer electronic device based on a codeset map (Mortensen; system can determine particular code set/file for the device based on stored device list information which includes the device information and associated IR Blasting Filename/IR code file, i.e. mapping the devices with the code(s); page 9, paragraphs 77-78); and
wherein each of the plurality of IR blaster components are further configured to transmit the respective first IR command signal to the first consumer electronic device based on the determined IR codeset (Mortensen; blasting command based on the mapped Blasting Filename/IR code file; page 9, paragraph 78, and again with multiple IR blasting/blaster components each with emitter(s) which can send signals in different directions; page 4, paragraph 47, and including a specific IR blaster; page 6, paragraph 58, and Fig. 3A, element 135, and wherein can contain multiple components; page 6, paragraph 59, and Richardson; IR Blaster, with plurality of components, transmits IR signals into communication environment, for controlling a target device; page 2, paragraph 19).
Claim 8, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejections of similar claims 1, 3-4, and 6. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a state identification component operable to determine the state of the plurality of consumer electronic devices (Mortensen; can determine state information in relation to specific devices/components; page 7, paragraphs 67-68, and page 8, paragraphs 69-70, and can determine power state(s) of devices; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87);
receive a first signature signal associated with the consumer electronic device, and determine, by the state identification component, that the first signature signal is not indicative of a first state (Mortensen; based on response/signature signal, received from device(s), i.e. change and/or not change of input, can determine if correct command signal operation has been performed; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87);
responsive to the determination that the first signature signal is not indicative of the first state, wirelessly transmit, by at least one of the plurality of IR blaster components, a second IR command signal (Mortensen; if not in the correct state, can perform operations such as trying other codes; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87, and which are part of specific code set/file, which can include plurality, i.e. including a second; page 9, paragraphs 77-78, and Richardson; IR Blaster, with plurality of components, transmits IR signals into communication environment, for controlling a target device; page 2, paragraph 19, and wherein wirelessly transmitting the signals; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 5, paragraph 47, and page 6, paragraph 54); and
receive a second signature signal associated with the consumer electronic device, and determine, by the state identification component, that the second signature signal is indicative of a second state (Mortensen; based on response/signature signal, received from device(s), i.e. change and/or not change of input, based on the particular code/command sent, such as the second, can determine if correct command signal operation has been performed; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 9, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses to associate the second IR codeset with the consumer electronic device, the system is configured to store an association between the second IR codeset and the consumer electronic device in a codeset map (Mortensen; system can determine particular code set/file for the device based on stored device list information which includes the device information and associated IR Blasting Filename/IR code file, i.e. mapping the devices with the code(s); page 9, paragraphs 77-78).
Regarding claim 10, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses the system is configured to transmit to the consumer electronic device, by the plurality of IR blaster components, subsequent IR command signals based on IR codes of the second IR codeset (Mortensen; system can send command signals based on the specific code set/file; page 9, paragraph 78, and wherein this can include sending multiple commands several times, i.e. subsequent command signals; page 9, paragraph 82, and Richardson; IR Blaster, with plurality of components, transmits IR signals into communication environment, for controlling a target device; page 2, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 12, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses the plurality of IR blaster components are oriented to project IR light in different directions (Mortensen; again with multiple IR blasting/blaster components each with emitter(s) which can send signals in different directions; page 4, paragraph 47, and including a specific IR blaster; page 6, paragraph 58, and Fig. 3A, element 135, and wherein can contain multiple components; page 6, paragraph 59, and Richardson; IR Blaster, with plurality of components; page 2, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 13, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses the first state and the second state are the same state (Mortensen; the state can include at least a same state relating to power of the device(s); page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 39, and page 10, paragraph 87).
Claim 14, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1.
Claim 15, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 16, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 17, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 18, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 19, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 20, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen, US 2009/0154933 in view of Richardson, US 2013/0154812 and Woo, US 2013/0171981 and further in view of Finc, US 2018/0167680.
Regarding claim 11, Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 8.
Mortensen in view of Richardson and Woo does not explicitly disclose compare a second signature signal to one or more reference signatures; and
determine that a level of similarity between the second signature signal and the one or more reference signatures meets a threshold condition.
In a related art, Finc does disclose compare a second signature signal to one or more reference signatures (can compare particular signals/signatures to reference(s); page 9, paragraphs 81-82); and
determine that a level of similarity between the second signature signal and the one or more reference signatures meets a threshold condition (can determine similarity based on particular threshold(s) being met; page 10, paragraph 89, and page 11, paragraph 93, and page 13, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Mortensen, Richardson, Woo, and Finc by allowing comparisons of signals for determining similarities, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining an infrared signal based on signature(s) (Finc; page 1, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm 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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424