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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on December 13, 2024. Claims 1-6 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on December 13, 2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
a. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent Number 12,207,096. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language.
b. Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent Number 11,943,622. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language. Instant method claims 1-3 are met by patent apparatus claims 1-3.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Noble (U.S Publication No. 2016/0255391 A1).
As per claim 1, Noble discloses a method performed by a remote control unit (e.g., figs. 2-8, 10: remote control devices 202), the method comprising:
for each command sent from a remote control unit via a communications module, sending a code unique to and associated with a pairing of the remote control unit to a first device (fig. 3: e.g., processing devices 204-1 that may implement management facility 102 and storage facility 104) controlled by the remote control unit (e.g., para. [0035]: “For example, a user may provide a user input command by way of remote control device 202-1 for processing device 204-1 to change the media content currently being presented to the user (e.g., by changing a channel). In response, remote control device 202-1 may transmit both IR signal 208-1 including an IR token and non-IR-based wireless communication signal 210-1 including the command to processing device 204-1. Management facility 102 may detect that remote control device 202-1 transmitted IR signal 208-1 along with an IR token to processing device 204-1 through, for example, an IR sensor associated with processing device 204-1. Management facility 102 may then confirm that the IR token indicates that remote control device 201-1 is paired with processing device 204-1 and may direct processing device 204-1 to execute the command included in non-IR-based wireless communication signal 210-1.”);
pairing with a second device (e.g., fig. 3: processing device 204-2) in response to the second device receiving the code unique to and associated with a pairing of the remote control unit to the first device (see e.g., para. [0037]-[0040] & [0070]-[0071]), wherein the pairing includes:
receiving a request from the second device to pair with the second device based on the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to a first device not matching a code previously stored by the second device (see e.g., para. [0037]-[0040]: “Based on the detected IR signal 208-1, management facility 102 may determine that remote control device 202-1 is not paired with processing device 204-2. This may be accomplished in any suitable manner. For example, management facility 102 may detect the IR token included in IR signal 208-1. Management facility 102 may access the pairing profile and determine that the IR token received by processing device 204-2 specifies that remote control device 202-1 is paired with processing device 204-1.”; “In response to the determination that remote control device 202-1 is paired with processing device 204-1, management facility 102 may re-pair remote control device 202-1 with processing device 204-2 in place of processing device 204-1.”; also see para. [0048]-[0049]: “Alternatively, management facility 102 may request confirmation from a user of a remote control device prior to the re-pairing of the remote control device with a second media content processing device…After management facility 102 receives the confirmation from the user, management facility 102 may re-pair the remote control device with the second media content processing device.”; and para. [0070]: “In step 1106, the system determines that the remote control device is not paired with the second media content processing device. As described above, the system may make such a determination by determining that the IR signal received by the second media content processing device includes the IR token that identifies the remote control device as being paired with the first media content processing device.”; Regrading “code previously stored by the second device” — see e.g., fig. 1; para. [0018]-[0019]: “Storage facility 104 may be configured to store user account data 106 representative of any data that may be associated with a user account (e.g., data defining pairings of remote control devices with respective media content processing devices)”; and para. [0031]: “management 102 facility may facilitate setting up a pairing profile (e.g., as part of user account data 106) that includes information regarding which remote control device(s) are paired with each of the plurality of media content processing devices associated with a user account.”);
completing pairing to the second device based on the request (e.g., para. [0040] & [0071]: “In step 1108, the system re-pairs, in response to the determination, the remote control device with the second media content processing device in place of the first media content processing device.”); and
for each command sent from the remote control unit via the communications module, sending a code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the second device (see e.g., para. [0040]: an updated IR token that is unique to the pairing of remote control device 202-1 with processing device 204-2).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Noble discloses the method further comprising:
receiving from the second device, the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the second device (e.g., para. [0040] & [0049]: the processing device 204-2 may send an updated IR token to remote control device 202-1 as part of the re-pairing of the remote control device 202-1 to the processing device 204-2).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Noble discloses the method further comprising:
generating the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the second device (see e.g., para. [0028] & [0040]: “For example, management facility 102 may generate, in any suitable manner, an updated IR token that is unique to the pairing of remote control device 202-1 with processing device 204-2.”); and
sending to the second device, the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the second device (e.g., para. [0040]: “Management facility 102 may then provide the updated IR token to remote control device 201-1 in any suitable manner.”).
As per claim 4, Noble discloses a method of changing of a pairing of a remote control unit (e.g., figs. 2-8, 10: remote control devices 202) with a first device (e.g., fig. 3: processing devices 204-1) to a pairing of the remote control unit (202) with a second device (e.g., fig. 3: processing devices 204-2), the method comprising:
the second device causing pairing of the remote control unit with the second device in response to the second device receiving from the remote control unit, for a command sent from a communications module of the remote control unit, a code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the first device (see e.g., para. [0037]-[0040] & [0070]-[0071]), wherein the pairing of the remote control unit with the second device includes:
the second device sending a request from the second device to pair with the remote control unit based on the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the first device not matching a code previously stored by the second device (see e.g., para. [0037]-[0040]: “Based on the detected IR signal 208-1, management facility 102 may determine that remote control device 202-1 is not paired with processing device 204-2. This may be accomplished in any suitable manner. For example, management facility 102 may detect the IR token included in IR signal 208-1. Management facility 102 may access the pairing profile and determine that the IR token received by processing device 204-2 specifies that remote control device 202-1 is paired with processing device 204-1.”; “In response to the determination that remote control device 202-1 is paired with processing device 204-1, management facility 102 may re-pair remote control device 202-1 with processing device 204-2 in place of processing device 204-1.”; also see para. [0048]-[0049]: “Alternatively, management facility 102 may request confirmation from a user of a remote control device prior to the re-pairing of the remote control device with a second media content processing device…After management facility 102 receives the confirmation from the user, management facility 102 may re-pair the remote control device with the second media content processing device.”; and para. [0070]: “In step 1106, the system determines that the remote control device is not paired with the second media content processing device. As described above, the system may make such a determination by determining that the IR signal received by the second media content processing device includes the IR token that identifies the remote control device as being paired with the first media content processing device.”; Regrading “code previously stored by the second device” — see e.g., fig. 1; para. [0018]-[0019]: “Storage facility 104 may be configured to store user account data 106 representative of any data that may be associated with a user account (e.g., data defining pairings of remote control devices with respective media content processing devices)”; and para. [0031]: “management 102 facility may facilitate setting up a pairing profile (e.g., as part of user account data 106) that includes information regarding which remote control device(s) are paired with each of the plurality of media content processing devices associated with a user account.”);
the second device completing pairing with the remote control unit based on the request being sent (e.g., para. [0040] & [0071]: “In step 1108, the system re-pairs, in response to the determination, the remote control device with the second media content processing device in place of the first media content processing device.”); and
for each command sent from the remote control unit via the communications module, the second device receiving a code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit to the second device (see e.g., para. [0040]: an updated IR token that is unique to the pairing of remote control device 202-1 with processing device 204-2).
As per claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated and Noble discloses the method further comprising:
the second device sending the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit with the second device (see e.g., para. [0040] & [0049]: the processing device 204-2 may send an updated IR token to remote control device 202-1 as part of the re-pairing of the remote control device 202-1 to the processing device 204-2).
As per claim 6, claim 4 is incorporated and Noble discloses the method further comprising:
receiving, by the second device, the code unique to and associated with the pairing of the remote control unit with the second device (see e.g., para. [0036]-[0040] & [0048]-[0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Tran et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0312074) teaches a method and device for locating and identifying lost or misplaced paired electronic devices.
Sallas et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0021485) teaches methods and systems for pairing two or more devices, such as a remote control and a display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspo.gov