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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dara-Abrams et al. (US 6,826,512), hereinafter referred to as Dara-Abrams in view of Spalink et al. (US 8,214,692), hereinafter referred to as Spalink.
Referring to claim 1, Dara-Abrams teach, as claimed, a test system, comprising: a computer system including a processor and a memory (i.e.-a diagnosis/test system comprised of a computer processor and a memory, col. 1, lines 50-57; col. 3, lines 13-22; and col. 6, lines 17-20); and an electronic interface in communications with the computer (i.e.-port 32, col. 4, lines 18-20 & 26-28, and col. 5, lines 41-45) and a television device under test (i.e.-a television under test, col. 4, line 12 and lines 32-33).
However, Dara-Abrams does not teach the electronic interface including a test interface board configured to permit the television device under test to be put into a debug mode by the computer system.
On the other hand, Spalink discloses a method and system comprised of a monitoring computer including a test interface panel (i.e.-monitoring computer 103…, col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 5; and col. 6, lines 56-60) configured to permit a device under test to be put into a debug mode (i.e.-monitoring computer 103 configured to put a device under test to go a verification process by loading and executing a test/boot instructions, using a cryptographic key, col. 3, lines 30-35 and col. 4, line 67 to col. 5, line 4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Dara-Abrams and incorporate an electronic interface including a test interface board configured to permit the television device under test to be put into a debug mode by the computer system, as taught by Spalink. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate a mechanism for ensuring that the device under test and its related hardware is in compliance with OEM, through testing, to ensure compatibility.
As to claim 2, the modified Dara-Abrams in view of Spalink teaches the test system of claim 1, wherein the electronic interface is configured to communicate with the television device under test to initiate firmware updating and testing of the television device under test (see Spalink, col. 3, lines 34-36; and Dara-Abrams, col. 10, lines 58-61).
As to claim 3, the modified Dara-Abrams in view of Spalink teach the test system of claim 1, wherein the test interface board is used to unlock the television device under test with a cryptographic key (see Spalink, col. 5, lines 2-4 and 11-17).
As to claim 4, the modified Dara-Abrams innately teaches the test system of claim 1, wherein the computer system is connected to the television device under test via an Ethernet port (see Dara-Abrams, col. 5, lines 46-49 and col. 6, lines 10-12) and is configured to issue diagnostic commands to the television device under test via the Ethernet port (see Dara-Abrams, col. 8, lines 62-67 and col. 10, lines 43-47).
As to claim 5, the modified Dara-Abrams teaches the test system of claim 1, wherein the computer system is configured to communicate with the television device under test to obtain unique identification information of the television device under test (see Dara-Abrams, col. 8, lines 12-16).
As to claim 6, the modified Dara-Abrams teaches the test system of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a camera, a microphone, a speaker, and a motion source (see Dara-Abrams, col. 6, lines 23 and 32).
Referring to claims 7-9, the claims are substantially the same as claims 1-6, hence the rejection of claims 1-6 is applied accordingly.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US 2018/0220099), Kang et al. (US 2009/0059000), Ohkubo et al. (US 2008/0263338), Roe et al. (US 2004/0054771), Mead et al. (US 2007/0046821), and Takagi et al. (US 2007/0061627) do teach system and method for executing and capturing debug information using a peripheral device. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
Nothing in Spalink describes or contemplates a test interface board designed specifically to interface with a television device for automated functional testing of audiovisual, sensor, and communication subsystems as claimed. Spalink's "test interface panel" is not disclosed as a television-specific hardware interface, nor as an interface adapted to connect to the physical and logical ports of a television device. By contrast, the claims require a test interface board configured to permit a television device to be placed into a debug mode by the computer system. The cited portions of Spalink merely describe a monitoring computer executing verification instructions and do not disclose a dedicated interface board that mediates privileged debug access to a television platform.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Dara-Abrams teach a diagnostic tool for consumer electronic devices, such as a television. Spalink discloses a method and system comprised of a monitoring computer including a test interface panel (i.e.-monitoring computer 103…, col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 5; and col. 6, lines 56-60) configured to permit a device under test to be put into a debug mode (i.e.-monitoring computer 103 configured to put a device under test to go into a verification process by loading and executing a test/boot instructions, using a cryptographic key, col. 3, lines 30-35 and col. 4, line 67 to col. 5, line 4). Therefore, the teachings of Dara-Abrams and Spalink, as combined, do teach the claimed invention as discussed in the claim rejection.
Applicants argued:
The Office Action does not identify, and the references do not disclose, a test interface board that performs the claimed role of permitting debug-mode entry under computer control. Spalink describes software-level verification and key usage, not a physical interface board interposed between a test computer and a television device.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. As discussed above, Spalink disclsoes a computer comprised of an interface to connect to a device under test (see col. 3, lines 15-16 and 30-36). Dara-Abrams disclose method and system comprised of diagnostic procedure for testing a television set. Therefore, the modified Dara-Abrams in view of Spalink do teach the claimed invention as discussed in the claim rejection above.
Applicants argued:
Dara-Abrams likewise lacks any disclosure of a hardware board that unlocks or enables restricted operating modes of the device under test.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Applicants are arguing a limitation that is not recited in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.-a hardware board that unlocks or enables restricted operating modes of the device under test) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argued:
There is no teaching in either reference of a computer-controlled hardware interface that actively transitions a television device into a debug state capable of receiving privileged diagnostic commands.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Applicants are arguing a limitation that is not recited in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.- actively transitions a television device into a debug state capable of receiving privileged diagnostic commands.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argued:
…neither reference identifies a problem that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate Spalink's security-focused verification mechanisms into Dara-Abrams' testing system, particularly for television devices. The cited art lacks a clear technical reason why such a combination would be pursued.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate a mechanism for ensuring that the device under test and its related hardware is in compliance with OEM, through testing, to ensure compatibility.
Applicants argued:
Spalink's teachings are not analogous to the claimed invention's purpose. Spalink addresses secure execution and verification, not automated functional testing of televisions.
Dara-Abrams addresses testing but without restricted debug access. The combination requires importing concepts from a non-analogous field (device security verification) into a testing architecture without any teaching or suggestion that such importation would be beneficial or even workable for television test systems.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Spalink disclsoes a system and method, the system comprising a computer configured to facilitate testing of plurality of devices via communication between computer 103 and device 102. Furthermore, Dara-Abrams teach a diagnostic tool for consumer electronic devices, such as a television. Dara-Abrams and Spalink are analogous since both references are focusing on testing and verifying of proper configuration of electronic devices.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights