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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 3/10/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,4, and 9.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the reference of Liu, it is the examiner’s position that the reference of Liu teaches identify that a first external device is physically connected to the electronic device through the connection unit (paragraph 024). Liu teaches obtaining information from the connector and determining configuration parameter for allowing the electronic device to control the external device (paragraph 017,025-026,041).
In response to applicant’s argument that that the information about the signal type communication of Liu is merely information about the external device itself, rather than environment information about a connection state, it is the examiner’s position that the configuration parameter information is considered as information relating to the connection state that allows the external device to be controlled by the electronic device (paragraph 017,025-026,041).
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) 1,5,7,11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170300343 in view of Cantero Clares US Patent Application Publication 20250037419.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an electronic device, comprising: a connection unit (paragraph 017,019); and a processor configured to:
identify that a first external device is physically connected to the electronic device through the connection unit (paragraph 024),
identify connection information about the first external device, the identified connection information including device information about the first external device, information from the first external device, and environment information about a connection state of the first external device (data indicative of the connector element, paragraph 024-025),
determine whether the first external device is a device controllable by the electronic device based on the identified connection information about the first external device for recognizing a plurality of external devices (configuration parameter indicates tasks or capability associated with the connected device, paragraph 017,025-026,041),
identify at least one control scheme of the first external device in response to determining that the first external device is a device controllable by the electronic device (paragraph 028,041), and
determine a control scheme of the identified at least one control scheme as a priority control scheme for controlling the first external device (control is determined based the detected configuration parameters, paragraph 07,017,041). Liu is silent on teaching at least one machine learning model and the connection information include image information from the first external device. Cantero Clares in an analogous art teaches receiving image information from the first external device and teaches the use of a machine learning model for recognizing the external device (fig.4, paragraph 045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu as disclosed by Cantero Clares because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Liu by providing additional external device recognition means for efficiently and reliably recognizing the connected external device and provide for the configuring of the interface between the host and the external connected device.
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the processor is configured to, in case that it is identified that the first external device connected to the electronic device powers on:
identify that the first external device is connected to the electronic device through the connection unit (paragraph 020,024).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the processor is configured to: display a user interface for determining the priority control scheme of the first external device in response to identifying the at least one control scheme of the first external device, and the user interface includes at least one object indicating the identified at least one control scheme, respectively (paragraph 059).
Regarding claim 11-12, Liu is silent on teaching at least one machine learning model for recognizing the plurality of external devices includes at least one of a first machine learning model trained by using device information about a plurality of external devices, a second machine learning model trained by using image information about the plurality of external devices, or a third machine learning model trained by using data about devices failing to connect among the plurality of external devices. Cantero Clares in an analogous art teaches receiving image information from the first external device and teaches the use of a machine learning model for recognizing the external devices (fig.4, paragraph 045). Cantero Clares teaches a first machine learning model trained by using device information about a plurality of external devices (paragraph 040). Cantero Clares also teaches the machine learning model is received from a server device (paragraph 042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu as disclosed by Cantero Clares because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Liu by providing additional external device recognition means for efficiently and reliably recognizing the connected external device and provide for the configuring of the interface between the host and the external connected device.
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the connection unit includes a high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI) connection unit (paragraph 05).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170300343 in view of Cantero Clares US Patent Application Publication 20250037419 and further in view of Zhang US Patent Application Publication 20170366620..
Regarding claim 2, Liu is silent on teaching transmitting, to a server device, network information through the communication unit, and receive, from the server device, the identified connection information about the first external device, wherein the network information includes information about another device connected to a same network as the electronic device. Zhang in an analogous art teaches transmitting, to a server device, network information through the communication unit, and receive, from the server device, the identified connection information about the first external device, wherein the network information includes information about another device connected to a same network as the electronic device (paragraph 06,031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Cantero Clares in view of Lai as disclosed by Zhang because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares in order to provide for a more centralized storing of the connection information at a server instead of storing the connection information at the local device.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches a communication unit (paragraph 019) but is silent on teaching the processor is configured to transmit, to a server device, the identified connection information about the first external device through the communication unit. Zhang in an analogous art teaches the processor is configured to transmit, to a server device, the identified connection information about the first external device through the communication unit (paragraph 06,031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Liu in view of as disclosed by Zhang because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares in order to provide for a more centralized storing of the connection information at a server instead of storing the connection information at the local device.
Claim(s) 4,6, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170300343 in view of Cantero Clares US Patent Application Publication 20250037419 and further in view of Rothkopf et al. US Patent Application Publication 20120075082.
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. is silent on teaching the processor is configured to, in case that it is determined that the first external device not the device controllable by the electronic device: transmit, to a server device, the identified connection information about the first external device. Rothkopf et al in an analogous art teaches the processing unit recognizes the control information of the connected external device based on the identification information of the external device and teaches transmitting the failure to recognize information to the server (fig. 4, paragraph 039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares as disclosed by Rothkopf et al because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Cantero Clares in view of Lai in order to provide a means for updating the information for controlling the external device.
Regarding claim 6, Liu is silent on teaching the identified at least one control scheme includes at least one of a first scheme using infrared (IR), a second scheme using an internet protocol (IP), or a third scheme using consumer electronics control (CEC). Rothkopf et al in an analogous art teaches least one control scheme includes at least one of a first scheme using infrared (IR), a second scheme using an internet protocol (IP), or a third scheme using consumer electronics control (CEC) (paragraph 016,030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares as disclosed by Rothkopf et al because such modification represents the substitution of one control scheme for another for producing the predictable result of providing an effective control scheme for controlling the external connected devices.
.
Regarding claims 7-8, Liu is silent on teaching the processor is configured to display a user interface for determining the priority control scheme of the first external device in response to identifying the at least one control scheme of the first external device, and the user interface includes at least one object indicating the identified at least one control scheme. Rothkopf in an analogous art teaches configuring the processor to display a user interface for determining the priority control scheme of the first external device in response to identifying the at least one control scheme of the first external device, and the user interface includes at least one object indicating the identified at least one control scheme (paragraph 019,022). Rothkopf et al also teaches the processor is configured to in response to identifying a user input selecting an object indicating the identified control scheme, determine a control scheme corresponding to the selected object as the priority control scheme of the first external device (paragraph 026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares as disclosed by Rothkopf et al because such modification represents an improvement over the system Liu in view of Cantero Clares because such modification provided for a more adaptable control device that allow configuration based on user’s preferences.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170300343 in view of in view of Cantero Clares US Patent Application Publication 20250037419 and further in view Belesiu US Patent Application Publication 20130232350.
Regarding claim 9, Liu is silent on teaching the processor is configured to: identify authentication information received from the first external device, and in case that the authentication information received from the first external device is valid, determine that the first external device is the controllable by the external device. Belesiu in an analogous art teaches the processor is configured to: identify authentication information received from the first external device, and in case that the authentication information received from the first external device is valid, determine that the first external device is a controllable device (paragraph 017,025-026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares as disclosed by Belesiu because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares by increasing the security of the host and external device by ensuring the host device only connects to an authorized external device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170300343 in view of in view of Cantero Clares US Patent Application Publication 20250037419 in view Belesiu US Patent Application Publication 20130232350 and further in view of Park US Patent Application Publication 20220067359.
Regarding claim 10. Liu is silent on teaching the processor is configured to determine whether the authentication information received from the first external device is valid using an optical character recognition (OCR) scheme. Park in an analogous art teaches the processor is configured to determine whether the authentication information received from the first external device is valid using an optical character recognition (OCR) scheme (Paragraph 013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares in view of Belesiu as disclosed by Park because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Liu in view of Cantero Clares by increasing the security of the host and external device by ensuring the host device only connects to an authorized external device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Regarding claims 14-20, the prior art of record is silent on teaching the server device is configured to:
receive, from the display device, network information;
identify the connection information about the first external device based on the network information;
transmit, to the display device, the connection information about the first external device; and
train the at least one machine learning model with the connection information about the first external device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights