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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 73 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 73 recites “The method of claim 62”. Claim 62 recites “A system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 52, 55-57, 59-62, 65-67, 71-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frei et al. (US 2014/0006660 A1) in view of Asmussen (US 7,395,546 B1).
Regarding claim 52 and 62, Frei discloses a method and system comprising:
Input/output circuitry (See Fig 13) configured to:
Monitor a plurality of sensors connected to a home network (See [0166] monitoring sensors such temperature, humidity, motion; see [0017-0019] home automation system);
Receiving an indication of sensor data from a sensor of the plurality of sensors (See [0166-0167] receiving measurements);
determining that the sensor satisfies a condition, wherein the condition being met causes a particular action to be performed on a media device connected to the home network (See [0167] sensor measurement satisfies a condition and [0168] resulting in a rule condition being satisfied triggering a corresponding action, see [0169] rule actions indicating what actions are to be performed such as sending a message or generating an event log);
determining that the sensor data corresponds to a predefined state specified for the condition (See [0167] sensor measurement is greater than, less than or equal to a predetermined value); and
determining that the indication of the sensor data was received within a time threshold specified for the condition (See [0167] the condition element can compare a current time to a predetermined threshold value); and
based at least in part on determining that the sensor data satisfies the condition causing the particular action (See [0024-0025] rule conditions being met causing the performing of an action; see also [0143]).
Frei does not explicitly disclose based at least in part on determining that the sensor data satisfies the condition causing the media device to perform the particular action.
Asmussen discloses that it was known to monitor a plurality of components connected to a home network causing a media device to take a particular action when a condition is satisfied (See Col 41 line 40-Col 42 line 67 triggering events cause a video program to be buffered. Triggering events include receiving a phonecall, a fax, a page to a pager).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Frei with the known methods of Asmussen predictably resulting in based at least in part on determining that the sensor data satisfies the condition causing the media device to perform the particular action by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of recording content when conditions are likely to interrupt a viewer as suggested by Asmussen.
Regarding claim 55 and 65, Frei and Asmussen disclose the method of claim 52, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining whether the indication was received within the time threshold comprises: comparing the time elapsed to the time threshold (See Frei [0167] determining whether a sensors state has been at the current value for at least 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 56 and 66, Frei and Asmussen further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the signal from one of the plurality of components is at least one of: activation of a door sensor, activation of a lighting system, or activation of a remote control function. (See Asmussen See Col 41 line 40-Col 42 line 67; see Frei light switch and detecting a light level See [0073-0074])
Regarding claim 57 and 67, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the causing performance of the particular action on the media device comprises causing at least one of: initiating playing of media content, automatically storing media content, or displaying a user prompt (See Asmussen See Col 41 line 40-Col 42 line 67 automatically buffering content).
Regarding claim 61 and 71, Frei and Asmussen further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the time threshold is a dynamic threshold that changes based on at least one of: the time of day or the one of the plurality of components from which the signal was received (See Frei [0167] comparing current time to a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 72, Frei and Asmussen further disclose the method of claim 52 wherein a hub device is present in a location associated with the home network, is connected to the home network, and is communicatively couple to the plurality of sensors by way of the home network, and wherein the monitoring of the plurality of sensors is performed via the hub device (See [0020-0021] interfacing device).
Regarding claim 73, Frei and Asmussen further disclose the method of claim 62, wherein the sensor data from one of the plurality of sensors indicates at least one of an activation of a door sensor or an activation of a lighting system (See Asmussen See Col 41 line 40-Col 42 line 67; see Frei light switch and detecting a light level See [0073-0074]).
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frei et al. (US 2014/0006660 A1) in view of Asmussen (US 7,395,546 B1) in view of Manchester et al. (US 2015/0163559 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Frei and Asmussen disclose the method of claim 57, and further discloses causing the initiating of playing of the media content (See Asmussen Col 41 line 40-Col 42 line 67 viewing a live program) but do not explicitly disclose further comprising: monitoring user activity based on a plurality of signals detected by the plurality of sensors of the home network; and based at least in part on determining that a user associated with the media device is inactive, transmitting a command to the media device to cease playing the media content.
Manchester discloses that it was known to monitor user activity and based on a period of inactivity send a power off indication message to a control device (See [0132]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Manchester predictably resulting monitoring user activity based on a plurality of signals detected by the plurality of sensors of the home network; and based at least in part on determining that a user associated with the media device is inactive, transmitting a command to the media device to cease playing the media content by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of saving resources as suggested by Manchester.
Claim(s) 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frei et al. (US 2014/0006660 A1) in view of Asmussen (US 7,395,546 B1) in view of Bruhn et al. (US 2016/0203700 A1).
Regarding claim 74, Frei and Asmussen disclose the method of claim 52 but do not explicitly disclose wherein causing the media device to perform the particular action comprises turning the media device on, wherein the media device is turned off when the indication of the signal is received.
Bruhn discloses that it was known to monitor a state of a user and switch from a lower power mode to resume playing a media program when a user has woken up (See [0155] and [0208]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known combination further with the known methods of Bruhn predictably resulting in causing the media device to perform the particular action comprises turning the media device on, wherein the media device is turned off when the indication of the signal is received by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of conserving power when a user is inactive as suggested by Bruhn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53-54, 59, 63-64, and 69 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, all of the features of dependent claims 53-54, 59, 63-64, and 69 including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
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 FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights