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 status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 04/29/2026.
Claims 6-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 13-14 are new.
Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
In view of the amendment filed on 04/29/2026, the restriction dated 01/30/2026 is moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen (US 2006/0262002).
Regarding claim 1: Nguyen disclose a wireless remote-control device, comprising:
an IC chip (Fig. 3, item 300);
a PCB board (Fig. 3);
remote-control buttons (Fig. 3, item 302);
whereas the IC chip is mounted to the PCB board (¶00224);
whereas the IC chip comprises preloaded numerical program codes which correspond to an IR function of an electronic device (¶0030);
whereas the preloaded numerical program codes are configured to contain numerical program codes of one or more electronic device brands (¶0030); and
whereas one or more of the remote-control buttons correspond to a distinct electronic device brand (Fig. 5, ¶0029).
Regarding claim 3: Nguyen disclose the wireless remote-control device of claim 1, further comprising:
a primary keypad (Fig. 2, item 202);
a secondary keypad (Fig. 2, item 204); and
the secondary keypad contains the one or more remote-control buttons corresponding to a distinct electronic device brand (¶0023: extended key contains buttons for any device brand that is assigned to. Therefore, it would contain more remote-control buttons corresponding to a distinct electronic device brand).
Regarding claim 5: Nguyen disclose the wireless remote-control device of claim 1, further comprising: the electronic device comprises a television; and the preloaded numerical code corresponds to a numerical code that communicates with a specific television brand at the time of the electronic device wireless remote manufacture (¶0026).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2006/0262002) in view of Hsu (US 2011/0298581).
Regarding claim 2: Nguyen disclose the wireless remote-control device of claim 1, further comprising:
a primary keypad (Fig. 2, item 202);
a secondary keypad (Fig. 2, item 204) but does not explicitly disclose whereas the secondary keypad is configured to be hidden by a removable cover.
In analogous art regarding control remotes, Hsu disclose whereas the secondary keypad is configured to be hidden by a removable cover (Fig. 4, item 219, ¶0038).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of whereas the secondary keypad is configured to be hidden by a removable cover, as disclose by Hsu, to the secondary keypad of Nguyen. The motivation is to provide protection to the keypads.
Regarding claim 4: Nguyen disclose the wireless remote-control device of claim 1, further comprising:
a primary keypad (Fig. 2, item 202);
a secondary keypad (Fig. 2, item 204); and
the secondary keypad contains the one or more remote-control buttons corresponding to a distinct electronic device brand (¶0023: extended key contains buttons for any device brand that is assigned to. Therefore, it would contain more remote-control buttons corresponding to a distinct electronic device brand) but does not explicitly disclose whereas the secondary keypad is configured to be hidden by a removable cover.
In analogous art regarding control remotes, Hsu disclose whereas the secondary keypad is configured to be hidden by a removable cover (Fig. 4, item 219, ¶0038).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of whereas the secondary keypad is configured to be hidden by a removable cover, as disclose by Hsu, to the secondary keypad of Nguyen. The motivation is to provide protection to the keypads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
