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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/2/2025 has been entered.
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 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 15, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey et al. (US Pat. No. 6204948), hereinafter referred to as Coffey in view of Sato (US Pat. No. 7742183), hereinafter referred to as Sato, and further view of Salazar et al. (US Pat. No. 5802467), hereinafter referred to as Salazar.
Referring to claim 15, Coffey discloses a control method, comprising:
in response to an electronic device receiving data in a first format while an input source device (column 2, lines 10–25 describe how the media converter receives signals in a first format (e.g., electrical signals over Ethernet)) is determined to be connected to the electronic device in a wired manner (column 1, lines 10–30, a wired connection (e.g., Ethernet, fiber optics)),
converting the data in the first format into data in a second format (column 3, lines 10–25 describe how the conversion process occurs based on the interface type (e.g., Ethernet-to-fiber conversion)),
wherein the second format is determined by the electronic device (device determines response format based on source device, processor 26, Fig. 2) based on a type of an interface that connects the input source device and the electronic device (column 5, lines 5–20 that the system determines the appropriate format for conversion based on the network interface in use.).
Sato discloses, what Coffey lacks, control data (SNMP control command packets, Fig. 3) and sending the control data in the second format (sending via address-converted IP packet, source/destination fields 601/602, Fig. 9; second network interface, 104, Fig. 1) to the input source device through the interface that connects the input source device and the electronic device (LAN connection via connector, 203, Fig. 2)
Coffey and Sato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in the input and output field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Coffey and Sato before him or her, to modify the system of Coffey to include the data conversion of Sato.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance compatibility and adaptive communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sato with Coffey to obtain the invention as specified in the instant.
Furthermore, Salazar discloses what neither Coffey nor Sato explicitly teaches; wherein:
the electronic device comprises a processing module (control circuit, 28, Fig. 2)
and a wireless module (wireless transceiver, 22, Fig. 2),
the processing module comprises a central processing unit (microprocessor, 30, Fig. 2)
and a display processor (video processor, 38, Fig. 2),
and, the wireless module is connected to the central processing unit (wireless transceiver coupled to microprocessor, 22 to 30, Fig. 2); and
that the control data is received in a first format (control signals generated from touch screen or voice input, col. 4, lines 35–45) from a wireless external device (handset configured to transmit control signals, col. 6, lines 30–45) connected to the electronic device in a wireless manner (two-way RF/IR link between handset and base station, col. 1, lines 55–67), and then routed through a system that may include a base station for conversion and delivery to a wired input device (base station couples signals to AC power line or telephone line, col. 5, lines 5–20).
Coffey, Sato, and Salazar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in the input and output field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Coffey, Sato, and Salazar before him or her, to modify the system of Coffey to include the data conversion of Sato and the wireless control data reception and forwarding architecture of Salazar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance compatibility, provide wireless control flexibility, and enable adaptive communication with legacy wired devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sato and Salazar with Coffey to obtain the invention as specified in the instant.
As to claim 25, Coffey discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the electronic device further comprises a microphone (audio signal handling, Col. 4, lines 20–35); and the electronic device sends audio data collected by the microphone to the input source device through the interface that connects the input source device and the electronic device (bi-directional media conversion including electrical-to-optical signal paths and vice versa, enabling transmission of audio data via the same interface, Col. 4, lines 20–35).
Claims 26 recites the corresponding limitation of claim 15. Therefore, they are rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 – 24 and 27 - 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's amendment to claims 15 and 26 recite additional structural and functional limitations regarding the composition of the electronic device, namely that it comprises a "processing module" including a "central processing unit and a display processor," and a "wireless module" connected to the central processing unit. Applicant further argues that these amendments distinguish over the prior art of record.
However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained for the following reasons:
The newly added limitations are still taught or rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Coffey, Sato, and Salazar (US5802467). Specifically, Salazar discloses an electronic system comprising:
A wireless transceiver connected to a microprocessor (wireless module connected to CPU, Fig. 2, elements 22 and 30);
A control circuit that includes processing logic (processing module, element 28, Fig. 2);
A video processor for display output (display processor, element 38, Fig. 2).
These elements are disclosed in the context of receiving control data via wireless communication, converting it based on interface conditions, and transmitting it over a wired connection, consistent with the original combination of Coffey and Sato.
The added limitations do not patentably distinguish the claim over the cited prior art because they merely recite conventional structural components (CPU, display processor, wireless module) commonly included in electronic control devices, as evident in Salazar.
Therefore, the amendment fails to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the prior art combination continues to render claims 15 and 26 unpatentable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUANITO C BORROMEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1720. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henry Tsai can be reached on 5712724176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.B/ Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184