DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 12-14, 20-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani (8,818,272) in view of Claus (CA 2686726).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Paryani discloses a system 200 comprising: an electrical appliance 202; and a remote controller 206 (See fig.2), wherein the remote controller comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing one or more computer programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processor to pair with the electrical appliance (See fig. 3, step 304) to establish a short-range radio-frequency communication link (i.e. Bluetooth link) between the remote controller and the electrical appliance, the short-range radio-frequency communication link being used for control of the electrical appliance by the remote controller (See figs. 2, 4). However, Paryani does not explicitly mention that in the pairing process, the remote controller is configured to obtain first communication identification information stored in a local storage region of the remote controller; the electrical appliance is configured to broadcast second communication identification information when in a power-up state; and the remote controller is further configured to: match the second communication identification information with the first communication identification information; and establish, in response to the second communication identification information being successfully matched with the first communication identification information. Since Claus suggests a pairing process to establish a short-range radio-frequency communication link (i.e. Bluetooth link) between two Bluetooth devices (i.e. Bluetooth master and Bluetooth slave) (See fig. 3), wherein the Bluetooth master is configured to obtain first communication identification information stored in a local storage region of the Bluetooth master; the Bluetooth slave is configured to broadcast second communication identification information when in a power-up state; and the Bluetooth master is further configured to: match the second communication identification information with the first communication identification information; and establish, in response to the second communication identification information being successfully matched with the first communication identification information (See fig. 3 and page 10 lines 15-30, page 12 line 32 to page 13 line 18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify, as suggested by Claus, the pairing process of the system of Paryani, for the advantage of allowing the remote controller to pair with an intended electrical appliance for remote controlling.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 20 and 28, as method.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Paryani & Claus disclose as cited in claims 20 and 28. Claus further discloses the remote controller is further configured to: initiate a radio-frequency connection request to the electrical appliance, to establish a radio-frequency connection between the remote controller and the electrical appliance (See fig. 3, step 358 and page 13 lines 19-31); perform identity authentication on the electrical appliance and the remote controller based on the radio-frequency connection (See fig. 3, steps 359-361 and page 13 lines 19-31); and form, in response to the identity authentication of the electrical appliance and the remote controller being passed, the short-range radio-frequency communication link between the remote controller and the electrical appliance (See fig. 3, step 365 and page 13 lines 19-31).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 21 and 29, as method.
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Paryani & Claus disclose as cited in claims 20 and 28. Claus further discloses the remote controller is further configured to: determine whether the first communication identification information is valid (i.e. retrieved stored registered Bluetooth address for matching); and match, in response to the first communication identification information being valid, the second communication identification information with the first communication identification information (See page 13 lines 12-15).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 22 and 30, as method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19, 23-27 and 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.
Regarding claims 23-24 and 31, Paryani & Claus disclose as cited in claims 22 and 30. However, they do not disclose that the remote controller is further configured to, subsequent to determining whether the first communication identification information is valid: determine, in response to the first communication identification information being invalid, the second communication identification information based on a predetermined signal strength threshold; and initiate a radio-frequency connection request to the electrical appliance, to establish the short-range radio-frequency communication link between the remote controller and the electrical appliance for a first time.
Claims 15-16 are objected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 23-24 and 31, as method.
Regarding claims 25-26, Paryani & Claus disclose as cited in 20. However, they do not disclose that subsequent to establishing the short-range radio-frequency communication link: detect whether a next key operation occurs within a predetermined delay interval subsequent to a current key operation on the remote controller; obtain, in response to no next key operation occurring within the predetermined delay interval subsequent to the current key operation on the remote controller, a current state of the electrical appliance; and control the remote controller to enter a sleep state corresponding to the current state of the electrical appliance.
Claims 17-18 are objected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 25-26, as method.
Regarding claim 27, Paryani & Claus disclose as cited in 20. However, they do not disclose that clear, in response to a target key operation on the remote controller, the first communication identification information stored in the local storage region of the remote controller to restore to an invalid communication identification value.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 27, as method.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights