DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12, 17-32 and 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 20 and 23-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12, 17-32 and 37-40 of this application are broader and anticipated by claims 1-10, 20 and 23-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2.
Regarding claim 1 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 1. It is noted that claim 1 of this application is broader and anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2.
Regarding claim 2 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claims 3-11 of this application, claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claims 3-11, respectively.
Regarding claim 12 of this application, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 12. It is noted that claim 12 of this application is broader and anticipated by claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2.
Regarding claim 17 of this application, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claims 18-20 of this application, claims 23-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,415 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claims 18-20, respectively.
Claims 21-31 of this application are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 1-11, respectively.
Claim 32 of this application is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 12 above.
Claim 37 of this application is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 17 above.
Claims 38-40 of this application are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 18-20, respectively.
Claims 1-4, 12, 21-24 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4, 12, 21-24 and 32 of this application are broader and anticipated by claims 1 and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2.
Regarding claim 1 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 1. It is noted that claim 1 of this application is broader and anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2.
Regarding claim 2 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12 of this application, claims 1 and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 12. It is noted that claim 12 of this application is broader and anticipated by claims 1 and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,941 B2.
Claims 21-24 of this application are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 1-4, respectively.
Claim 32 of this application is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 12 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-18 and 32-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kryze et al. (US Patent No. 7,889,175 B2) in view of Feinleid et al. (US Patent No. 6,346,891 B1).
In considering claim 12, Kryze et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed a display apparatus comprising: a first communicator is met by the RF communication module 92 (Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 24-43), 2) the claimed a first controller is met by the first processor or CPU 80 (Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 24-43), 3) the claimed a remote control apparatus comprising: a second communicator is met by the RF communication module 106 of the remote control unit 20 (Fig. 3, col. 5, line 44 to col. 6, line 45), 4) the claimed a sensor is met by the assortment of different sensors (touchpad sensor) (Fig. 3, col. 5, line 44 to col. 6, line 45), 5) the claimed a user input unit comprising a plurality of buttons including a button for controlling the display apparatus is met by the physical buttons 32-35 (Figs. 1a-1b and 3, col. 5, line 44 to col. 6, line 45), and 6) the claimed a second controller configured to: control the motion sensor to operate in a first state, and based on information received from the display apparatus through the second communicator, the information being related to a state of the display apparatus, control an operating state of the motion sensor to change from the first state to a second state is met by the CPU 96 and the pattern recognition system will likewise detect when it is time to turn the remote control unit off by detecting inactivity, or if detecting that the television has been turned off, this latter event would be detectable, for example, by information communicated via the RF modules (Fig. 3, col. 5, line 44 to col. 6, line 12 and col. 7, lines 4-56).
However, Kryze et al. explicitly do not disclose the claimed the remote control apparatus comprising a motion sensor.
Feinleib et al. teach that the remote control 22 is further equipped with a handling sensor 50 to detect when the user handles the handset, the handling sensor 50 is preferably implemented as a motion sensor that detects movement of the handset (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the motion sensor as taught by Feinleib et al. into Kryze et al.’s system in order to detects when a user first picks up or otherwise handles the handset before actuating the keys to effectively control the system.
In considering claim 13, the claimed wherein the remote control apparatus consumes less power when the motion sensor is in the first state than when the motion sensor is in the second state is met by the WAKE command which instructs the control device to begin its startup phase (off-on) (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-63 of Feinleib et al.).
The motivation to combine the references have been discussed in claim 12 above.
In considering claim 14, the claimed wherein the second controller is further configured to, in response to the button being pressed, control the second communicator to transmit a command corresponding to the button among the plurality of buttons to the display apparatus is met by when a user depresses a button, the RC handset emits a signal to the controlled unit to cause an action associated with the depressed button, RC handsets are typically implemented with an infrared (IR) transmitter that transmits the command signal using IR communication (Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 11-61 of Feinleib et al.).
The motivation to combine the references have been discussed in claim 12 above.
In considering claim 15, the claimed wherein the button is a power button for controlling a power of the display apparatus is met by the power button of the RC (Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 11-61 of Feinleib et al.).
The motivation to combine the references have been discussed in claim 12 above.
In considering claim 16, the claimed wherein the information is a response for the command is met by detecting that the television has been turned off, this latter event would be detectable, for example, by information communicated via the RF modules (Fig. 3, col. 7, lines 4-56 of Kryze et al.).
The motivation to combine the references have been discussed in claim 12 above.
In considering claim 17, the claimed wherein the first state is an inactive state, and the second state is an active state is met by the WAKE command which instructs the control device to begin its startup phase (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-63 of Feinleib et al.).
The motivation to combine the references have been discussed in claim 12 above.
In considering claim 18, the claimed wherein the information indicates a power status of the display apparatus is met by detecting that the television has been turned off (Fig. 3, col. 7, lines 4-56 of Kryze et al.).
The motivation to combine the references have been discussed in claim 12 above.
Claim 32 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 12 above.
Claims 33-38 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 13-18, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 21-31 would be allowed if the double patenting rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirata et al. (US 2011/0043709 A1) discloses remote control device and television receiver.
Bucchieri (US 2008/0151125 A1) discloses systems and methods for controlling a display.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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.
December 13, 2025
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422