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.
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. 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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184