Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on December 19, 2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
Continuity/Priority Information
This application is a continuation of and claims the benefit of U.S. Application No. 18/373,927, filed on September 27, 2023 (now Patent No. 12,189,922), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/100,737, filed on January 24, 2023 (now Patent No. 11,868,588), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/596,458, filed on October 8, 2019 (now Patent No. 11,592,961), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/835,804, filed on December 8, 2017 (now Patent No. 10,514,828), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 12/148,420, filed on April 18, 2008 (now Patent No. 9,870,123).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/19/2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, “the functional operation” lacks antecedent basis. It is presumed to recite “a functional operation”.
Claim 5, line 2, “the controllable device” lacks antecedent basis. It is presumed to recite “a controllable device”.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are further objected to because of their dependency on claims 1 and 5 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hardacker et al. (U.S Publication No. 2008/0231762 A1; hereinafter “Hardacker”) in view of Terakado et al. (U.S Publication No. 2002/0059617 A1; hereinafter “Terakado”).
As per claim 1, Hardacker discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable media having stored thereon instructions wherein the instructions, when executed by a control device (e.g., para. [0045]: “The logic itself may be executed by one or more digital processors, such as but not limited to the TV processor 330 and/or the remote processor 315 executing logic stored on a computer readable medium such as but not limited to the remote memory 320 and/or memory in the display device (TV)”) cause the control device to perform steps comprising:
receiving from a controllable device a device identifier data (e.g. para. [0046]: the TV processor 315 can receive device identifying information (e.g. type, model number, manufacturer and serial number) from controllable devices (350, 355. 360, 370) via HDMI CEC);
using the device identifier data received from the controllable device to select a one of a plurality of sets of function information stored in a memory of the control device (para. [0047]: the display device accesses a local database or server to obtain component capability information and control codes based on the received device information);
using a signal received from a remote device to select a function information from the one of the plurality of sets of function information stored in the memory of the control device (e.g., para. [0048]: describes remote-based configurations selection and transmission of control signals);
using the function information to create a signal for controlling the functional operation of the controllable device (e.g., para. [0047]-[0048]: necessary control codes are obtained and signals are transmitted to establish the selected configuration); and
transmitting to the controllable device the created signal for controlling the functional operation of the controllable device (e.g., para. [0048]: signals transmitted via HDMI CEC to devices).
Hardacker does not explicitly disclose (i) selecting one of a plurality of stored sets of function information based on the device identifier data, and (ii) selecting a specific function from the selected set in response to user input from a remote device.
However, Terakado, in an analogous art of control systems and remote controls (para. [0002]), discloses a home network system including a remote control, home server, and multiple home appliances (fig. 1), and teaches: storing multiple device-specific function sets (e.g., para. [0040]-[0041] & [0050]: storing plural sets of control data, GUI data and internal processing data for different appliances), selecting a specific function from a selected set in response to user input from a remote device (e.g., para. [0043]-[0044]: displaying appliance-specific operation panels; selecting a particular appliance and specific operation buttons corresponding to functions of that appliance), and transmitting control instruction to the selected appliance based on the selected function (para. [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Hardacker to organize the capability/control information obtained based on device identifier data into plural device-specific stored function sets and to allow user selection of specific functions within the selected set, as taught by Terakado. This would improve scalability, enable more organized function management, and allow greater adaptability to different appliance types.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Hardacker further discloses: wherein the device identifier data comprises a brand name and a model number for the controllable device (e.g., para. [0046]: i.e. identifying information of a model number and manufacturer of a particular electronic consumer device).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Hardacker further discloses: wherein the device identifier data comprises device type information (e.g., para. [0046]: i.e. identifying information of a type of a particular electronic consumer device).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Hardacker further discloses: wherein the function information for the controllable device comprises a command data and command transmitting protocol information (see e.g. para. [0047]: obtaining necessary control codes as part of the component capability information, which corresponds to command data; para. [0045]-[0046]: use of HDMI CEC protocol for signaling between devices, which corresponds to command transmitting protocol information).
Method claims 5-8 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-4. Therefore, method claims 5-8 correspond to apparatus claims 1-4 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
As per claim 9, claim 5 is incorporated and Hardacker discloses: the method further comprising using the device identifier data received from the controllable device to cause a one of a plurality of user interfaces to be provisioned to the remote device whereupon an activation of an input element of the one of a plurality of user interfaces causes a transmission of the signal (see e.g., para. [0047]-[0048]: describes using identifying information to obtain component capability information, transmitting control information to the remote, and displaying configurations on the TV for user selection).
Hardacker does not explicitly disclose provisioning one of a plurality of device-specific user interfaces to the remote based on the device identifier data.
However, Terakado teaches: provisioning one of a plurality of device-specific user interfaces to the remote based on the appliance type and transmitting signals in response to activation of input elements (see e.g., para. [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0049] & [0050]: describes storing and downloading GUI data corresponding to different home appliances, displaying appliance-specific operation panels, and activation of an operation button causing transmission of control instructions to the appliance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Hardacker to provision device-specific user interfaces to the remote, as taught by Terakado, in order to improve usability and structured control of multiple device types.
As per claim 10, claim 9 is incorporated and Hardacker in view of Terakado teaches: wherein the control device transmits the one of the plurality of user interfaces to the remote device (see Hardacker, para. [0048]: teaches transmitting control information to the remote; and Terakado, para. [0041] & [0049]: teaches that GUI data is downloaded and stored and that the remote obtains GUI data from the home server, thereby teaching transmission of user interface data to the remote device).
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 conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,189,922, claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,588, and claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,592,961. 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. Patent claims are narrower and thus teach all the limitations of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892, Notice of References Cited form.
Buil (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0043453) discloses a method and remote control device for selectively controlling one of a plurality of devices.
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 on 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@uspto.gov