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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 52, 54, 57-62,64, 67-68, and 70-73 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11983229 in view of Shin (KR 20110113883 A).
Regarding Independent Claims 52 and 62 of the current application, US Patent 11983229 Claim 1 and 6 recites almost the same language as Claims 52 and 62. However, Shin teaches enabling navigable control enables movement of a highlighted region displayed on the first device when a remote control is moved (Page 6, Paragraph 2). The movement is detected by accelerometer or gyroscope (Page 5, Paragraph 1). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bae and Yoshida with the teachings of Shin such that an enhanced remote control is provided that can manipulate what is highlighted on the display to more easily see what is a potential option to be selected via the remotely control.
Claim 52 (Current Application ) A method comprising: establishing, using a first device, bi-directional communication with a second device; determining a control option available on the second device; generating, for display on the first device, a selectable option, wherein selection of the selectable option enables the first device to receive commands that enable navigable control of a user input interface on the first device based on the control option on the second device; receiving a selection of the selectable option; receiving data from the second device, wherein the data corresponds to an input received at the second device corresponding to the control option, and wherein the input comprises detecting a motion of the second device wherein the input is received via an input/output (I/O) option of the second device, wherein the input comprises a sensor output of the I/O option, and wherein the sensor is at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope; and based on receiving the input from the second device corresponding to the control option, performing an operation at the first device that corresponds to the control option, wherein performing the operation at the first device comprises causing a visual change in the user input interface of the first device, the visual change comprising movement of a highlighted region or cursor displayed on the user input interface of the first device.
Claim 1. (Patent 11983229) A method comprising: establishing, using a first device, bi-directional communication with a second device; determining a control option available on the second device is not available on the first device, wherein determining the control option is available on the second device comprises: determining a command language of the control option; comparing the command language to a communication protocol of the first device; determining, based on the comparing, the command language corresponds to the communication protocol of the first device; and in response to the determining, identifying the control option as a source for inputs for operations at the first device; generating a selectable option on the first device, wherein the selectable option enables the first device to receive commands from the control option on the second device; receiving a selection of the selectable option; receiving an input at the second device corresponding to the control option; and in response to receiving the input at the second device corresponding to the control option, performing an operation at the first device that corresponds to the control option.
Claim 2. (Patent) The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, at the first device, the second device is within a predetermined proximity of the first device; and determining the second device has a communication protocol compatible with the first device.
Claim 6. (Patent) The method of claim 1, wherein the control option comprises an I/O option.
Regarding Dependent Claims 54,61,64, 72-73, all limitations are obvious addressed by the Shin reference.
Regarding Dependent Claims 57 and 67, Claims 2 and 5 of the Patent teaches the limitations.
Regarding Dependent Claims 58 and 68, Claim 8 of the Patent teaches the limitations.
Regarding Dependent Claims 60 and 70, Claim 7 of the Patent teaches the limitations.
Claims 56 and 66 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11983229 in view of Laurent (US20140358284).
Regarding Dependent Claims 56 and 66, Laurent teaches that it is well known in the art for a remote control to have input sensor be haptic, touch, audio, lidar, etc (Par.83). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify US Patent 11,983,229 with the teachings of Laurent such that a remote control utilizes a Lidar emitter sensor for various enhancements such as providing distance measurement features or gesture recognition to help remotely control the TV.
One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that despite minor wording variations, the claims in the pending application are obvious over the US Patent 11,983,229 and the additional references cited above.
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) 52, 54, 57-62, 64-65, and 67-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US 20130050073) in view of Yoshida (JP 2005012433 A).
Regarding Claim 52 and 62, Bae teaches method comprising: establishing, using a first device(Par.5,Par.9, Fig.1,100 and Fig.3:120, TV), bi-directional communication with a second device (Par.43 and Par.59, input devices 10/Fig.1:10b Smart phone pairing, Fig.3:220); determining a control option available on the second device (Par.9, Par.43 and Fig.3:220, identifies devices capable of controlling the first device 100. App installed on phone); generating, for display on the first device, a selectable option (Fig.3 and Fig.1:10 and Par.15, input devices displayed), wherein selection of the selectable option enables the first device to receive commands that enable navigable control of a user input interface (Par.35, controls volume/channel/input for controlling the display apparatus) on the first device based on the control option on the second device (Par.35 and Par.43, input via devices 10/smarphone220 is selection of the option displayed. At least channel/navigable control can be changed); receiving a selection of the selectable option (Par.35 and Par.43, input via device 10/smarphone220 is selection of the option displayed.); receiving data from the second device, wherein the data corresponds to an input received at the second device corresponding to the control option (Par.35 and Par.43, input via device 10/smarphone220 corresponds to TV volume/channel/input for controlling the display apparatus via the smartphone. Controlling option is the ability to control the display), wherein the input is received via an input/output (I/O) option of the second device, wherein the input comprises a sensor output of the I/O option (Par.43 and 35, users input on the phone to control must be at least a screen touch/button output i.e. I/O option), and based on receiving the input from the second device corresponding to the control option, performing an operation at the first device that corresponds to the control option (Par.35 and Par.43, input via device 10/smarphone220 corresponds to TV volume/channel/input for controlling the display apparatus), however Bae does not teaches the sensor is at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope; wherein performing the operation at the first device comprises causing a visual change in the user input interface of the first device, the visual change comprising movement of a highlighted region or cursor displayed on the user input interface of the first device.
Yoshida teaches a sensor in a remote control is at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope (Par.15 and Par.27); wherein performing the operation at the first device (i.e. tv/display) comprises causing a visual change in the user input interface of the first device (Par.20,Par.33-35, Par.40, EPG screen changes, pointer moves), the visual change comprising movement of a highlighted region or cursor displayed on the user input interface of the first device (Par.16 and Par.35, pointer is cursor).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Baes TV/display being remotely controlled with the teachings of Yoshida such that movement of the remote control will cause a visual change (e.g. at least cursor movement) in the first device such that an enhanced remote control device is provided which can conveniently control the display without having to constantly press a button over and over to move a pointer/cursor (Yoshida Par.4).
Regarding Claim 54 and 64, Yoshida teaches wherein the sensor output is indicative of movement of the second device (Par.15, 20, and Par.27).
Regarding Claim 57 and 67, Bae teaches detecting whether the second device is within a predetermined proximity of the first device; determining the second device has a communication protocol compatible with the first device; and based on determining that the second device is within the predetermined proximity of the first device, establishing the bi-directional communication between the first device and the second device using the communication protocol (Par.43, if within distance and has Bluetooth capability connects).
Regarding Claim 58 and 68, Bae teaches determining the control option is available on the second device comprises: requesting information associated with a type of the control option from the second device (Par.43:lines 14-17, requested information is associated/related with a type of control option).
Regarding Claim 59 and 69, Bae teaches the control option comprises an I/O option (Par.35, controlling vol/on-off/channel/users input for controlling the display apparatus requires I/O).
Regarding Claim 60 and 70, Bae teaches the selectable option is an icon corresponding to the I/O option (Fig.4A and Par.38, image/icon on display is selected via user input from the matching device), and wherein the icon is selectable to extend a functionality to the first device otherwise unavailable without the second device (Fig.4A, wireless remote-control feature not on second device is now possible via the connection).
Regarding Claim 61 and 71, Yoshida teaches the control option is associated with an interactive function on the first device, and wherein the input from the second device corresponding to the control option controls the first device via the interactive function (Par.15 and Par.27, Par.33-35, EPG controlled by remote device).
Claim(s) 56 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US 20130050073) and Yoshida (JP 2005012433 A) in further view of Laurent (US20140358284).
Regarding Claims 56 and 66, the sensor output further comprises information from a LIDAR emitter-sensor of the second device.
Laurent teaches that it is well known in the art for a remote control to have input sensor be haptic, touch, audio, lidar, etc (Par.83). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bae and Yoshida with the teachings of Laurent such that a remote control utilizes a Lidar emitter sensor for various enhancements such as providing distance measurement features or gesture recognition to help remotely control the TV.
Claims 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US 20130050073) and Yoshida (JP 2005012433 A) in further view of Shin (KR 20110113883 A).
Regarding Claim 72 and 73, Bae and Yoshida do not expressly teach enabling navigable control enables movement of a highlighted region displayed on the first device corresponding to directional input received at the second device.
Shin teaches enabling navigable control enables movement of a highlighted region displayed on the first device corresponding to directional input received at the second device (Page 6, Paragraph 2). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bae and Yoshida with the teachings of Shin such that an enhanced remote control is provided that can manipulate what is highlighted on the display to more easily see what is a potential option to be selected via the remotely control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
