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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 11/25/24 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2022/0050687 by Zeng.
2) Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a remote control system comprising: an electronic device that comprises an imaging unit (figure 6, item 61; paragraph 181; a television with a camera); a first terminal device that is used outside a range that is able to be imaged by the electronic device (figure 6, item 63; paragraphs 165 and 182; device for generating a command can be mobile); and a second terminal device that is used in the range that is able to be imaged by the electronic device (figure 6, item 62; an intermediary mobile device), wherein the first terminal device comprises: a transmission unit that transmits control data including a control command for the electronic device (paragraph 124; figure 3, item 301; “first terminal” sends the intermediary terminal a 2D code), wherein the second terminal device comprises: a receiving unit that receives the control data, and a second display unit that displays a first image representing the received control data (paragraph 125; received 2D code is displayed by the intermediary device), and wherein the electronic device comprises: an execution unit that extracts the control command from the first image and executes processing based on the control command once the first image to be displayed on the second display unit is captured by the imaging unit (paragraph 126; TV scans the 2D code and boots the device dependent upon the command within the code).
3) Regarding claim 2, Zeng teaches the remote control system according to claim 1, wherein the first image is an optically readable code (paragraph 11; codes are scanned with a camera).
4) Regarding claim 3, Zeng teaches the remote control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device comprises: a first display unit, and a display control unit that causes the first display unit to display a second image representing, by an optically readable code, an execution status after the control data is executed, the second terminal device comprises an imaging unit that captures the second image displayed by the electronic device, and a transmission unit that transmits the execution status represented by the second image to the first terminal device (paragraph 188; intermediary mobile device can scan a 2D code displayed on the television and send the determined data to an admin device), and the first terminal device comprises an output unit that outputs the execution status transmitted from the second terminal device (paragraphs 189 and 190; admin device receives the booting request and can allow a user to manually determine whether to proceed with a particular time length activation).
5) Claims 7 and 8 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 1 and 3 above, respectively.
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.
6) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0050687 by Zeng as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2018/0004423 by Saito.
Zeng teaches the remote control system according to claim 3, wherein the display control unit of the electronic device causes the first display unit to display response content in response to a command included in the control data, the transmission unit of the second terminal device transmits response content based on a result of the imaging to the first terminal device, and the output unit of the first terminal device outputs the response content transmitted by the second terminal device (paragraph 158; error information can be displayed in response to a command and transmitted to the terminal devices).
Zeng does not specifically teach the imaging unit of the second terminal device images the response content displayed by the first display unit (error information is received by the intermediary device but not necessarily imaged).
Saito teaches the imaging unit of the second terminal device images the response content displayed by the first display unit (figure 4; paragraph 56; in response to an activation command at the display, a QR code can be displayed to be imaged by a terminal device).
NOTE: Saito could modify Zeng such that the response messages transmitted by the television could be displayed as a code and imaged instead of being transmitted.
Zeng and Saito are combinable because they are both from the display control field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Zeng with Saito to add displaying a response code. The motivation for doing so would have been to indicate a state of a device (paragraph 56). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Zeng with Saito to obtain the invention of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights