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 26, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Continuity Information
This application is a continuation of and claims the benefit of U.S Application No. 18/233,192 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,217,601), filed on August 11, 2023, which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 17/686,039, filed on March 3, 2022 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,073,711), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 17/528,485, filed on November 17, 2021 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,295,606), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No.17/461,237, filed on August 30, 2021 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,651,677), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 16/778,241, filed on January 31, 2020 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,113,954), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 16/199,463, filed on November 26, 2018 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,937,306), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 15/900,342 filed on February 20, 2018 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,922,958), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 15/789,547, filed on October 20, 2017 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,325,486), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 15/259,847, filed on September 8, 2016 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,842,492), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 14/136,023, filed on December 20, 2013 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,449,500), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 13/899,671, filed on May 22, 2013 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,437,105), which application claims the benefit of and is a continuation of U.S Application No. 13/657,176, filed on December 22, 2012 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,215,394), which application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/552,857, filed October 28, 2011, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/680,876, filed August 8, 2012.
Drawings
The drawings filed on December 26, 2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negron et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0239587 hereinafter "Negron") in view of Noda et al. (U.S Patent No. 6,968,399 hereinafter referred to as "Noda").
As per claim 1, Negron discloses a method for controlling a functional operation of an intended target appliance (para. [0004]: a system and method for enabling control of consumer electronic appliances with a personal communication or entertainment device via a network connected relay device), comprising:
receiving by a media streaming device (Fig.1: command relay device 100) a request from a remote control device (Fig.1: smartphone 102) intended to cause the intended target appliance (Fig.1: TV 108, cable set top box 106, or AV receiver 104) to perform the functional operation (see e.g., para. [0015]: the command relay device decodes the received control request transmission, ascertains from it a target appliance, for example TV 108, set top box 106, or AV receiver 104, and issues a control command 122); and
causing the media streaming device (Fig.1: command relay device 100) to respond to the request by using the command relay device 100 identifies the appropriate appliance code data elements within a preprogrammed library of appliance code data to transmit control commands 122 in a form recognizable by the target appliance, for example an IR or RF signal of the format used by the target appliance's remote control device).
Negron does not explicitly disclose using a highest prioritized one of a plurality of communication methods in a listing of communication methods that has been associated with the functional operation to transmit to the intended target appliance a command for controlling the functional operation of the intended target appliance.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Noda teaches: using a highest prioritized one of a plurality of communication methods in a listing of communication methods that has been associated with the functional operation to transmit to the intended target appliance a command for controlling the functional operation of the intended target appliance (see e.g., col. 5, line 2 to col. 6, line 32; col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 20; col. 19, lines 25-65: an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1: Device 1) configured to communicate with another information processing apparatus (Fig. 1: Device 2) utilizing a plurality of communication protocols; when a device supports a plurality of protocols, by stating the order of priority thereof, the optimal protocol can be used to perform communication).
Negron and Noda are considered to be analogous art because both relate to improved appliance control communication methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Negron to incorporate the teachings of Noda to provide a highest prioritized one of a plurality of communication methods when transmitting the command to the intended target appliance. Doing so enables the use of the most optimal communication method/protocol when the target appliance supports a plurality of communication methods/protocols, as recognized by Noda (col. 8, lines 16-20).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Negron does not explicitly disclose: wherein the media streaming device is caused to use at least a next highest prioritized one of the plurality of communication methods in the listing to transmit a further command for controlling the functional operation of the intended target appliance when performance of the functional operation by the intended target appliance in response to transmission of a command via the highest prioritized one of the communication methods in the listing is unconfirmed.
However, Noda further teaches: wherein the media streaming device is caused to use at least a next highest prioritized one of the plurality of communication methods in the listing to transmit a further command for controlling the functional operation of the intended target appliance when performance of the functional operation by the intended target appliance in response to transmission of a command via the highest prioritized one of the communication methods in the listing is unconfirmed (see e.g., col. 5, line 43 to col. 6, line 5; col. 7, line 41 to col. 8, line 20).
Negron and Noda are considered to be analogous art because both relate to improved appliance control communication methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Negron to incorporate the teachings of Noda to provide using at least a next highest prioritized one of the plurality of communication methods in the listing to transmit a further command for controlling the functional operation of the intended target appliance. Doing so allows to use the next optimal communication method/protocol in the listing when the highest prioritized one of the communication methods is not supported, as recognized by Noda (col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 3).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Negron in view of Noda further teaches: the method comprising using at least one characteristic associated with each of the plurality of communication methods in the listing to prioritize the plurality of communication methods in the listing (see Negron, e.g., para. [0019]-[0020]; Noda, e.g., col. 5, line 43 to col. 6, line 5).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Negron in view of Noda further teaches: the method comprising providing a bi-directional communication method in the listing with a priority that is higher than a uni-directional communication method (see Negron, e.g., para. [0015]; Noda, e.g., Figs. 6, 8; col. 18, line 61 to col. 19, line 5).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Negron in view of Noda further teaches: wherein a plurality of controllable functional operations of the intended target appliance are each associated with a prioritized listing of one or more communication methods (see Negron, e.g., para. [0019]-[0020]; Noda, e.g., col. 5, line 43 to col. 6, line 5).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Negron in view of Noda further teaches: the method comprising interrogating the intended target appliance to determine which of a plurality of communication methods are supported by the appliance for use in receiving a command for controlling the functional operation and using results obtained from the interrogation to create the listing (see Negron, e.g., para. [0020]: appliance code data to be used to transmit control commands to the target appliances in appropriate command protocols may be downloaded into command relay device 100 via a network interface(s) 210, 212 either during an initialization phase or on an as required basis; Since downloading would require communication to the appliance to receive appliance code data at the command relay device, the communication between the command relay device and the appliance in this case is considered interrogating; also see Noda, Fig. 7; col. 7, line 41 to col. 8, line 20).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Negron in view of Noda further teaches: wherein the media streaming device performs the steps of interrogating the intended target appliance and using results obtained from the interrogation to create the listing (see Negron, e.g., para. [0020]; Noda, Fig. 7; col. 7, line 41 to col. 8, line 20).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negron in view of Chardon et al. (U.S Publication No. 2012/0249890; hereinafter “Chardon”).
As per claim 8, Negron discloses a method for controlling functional operations of an intended target appliance (para. [0004]: a system and method for enabling control of consumer electronic appliances with a personal communication or entertainment device via a network connected relay device), comprising:
receiving by a media streaming device (Fig.1: command relay device 100) a request from a remote control device (Fig.1: smartphone 102) intended to cause the intended target appliance (Fig.1: TV 108, cable set top box 106, or AV receiver 104) to perform at least one of a plurality of functional operations (see e.g., para. [0015]: the command relay device decodes the received control request transmission, ascertains from it a target appliance, for example TV 108, set top box 106, or AV receiver 104, and issues a control command 122); and
causing the media streaming device to use at least one of a plurality of communication methods that has been associated with the at least one of the plurality of functional operations to transmit to the intended target appliance at least one command wherein the at least one command is appropriate for controlling the at least one functional operation of the intended target appliance (see e.g., para. [0015]-[0020] & Fig. 7, para. [0057]-[0063]: the command relay device 100 identifies the appropriate appliance code data elements within a preprogrammed library of appliance code data to transmit control commands 122 in a form recognizable by the target appliance, for example an IR or RF signal of the format used by the target appliance's remote control device)
Negron does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance are each associated with at least a different one or more of the plurality of communication methods.
However, in the same field of remote-control systems, Chardon teaches: wherein at least two of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance are each associated with at least a different one or more of the plurality of communication methods (see e.g., para. [0066] & [0088]: the remote-control engine tracks the states of an HDMI appliance and may select and transmit a first control signal (e.g. via IR communication, RF communication, or other CEC command codes) to control a first operational function [e.g. power on/off] of the HDMI appliance and may select and transmit a second control signal (e.g. via IR communication, RF communication, or other CEC command codes) to control a second operational function [e.g. volume or sound control] of the HDMI appliance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Negron to incorporate the teachings of Chardon to provide at least two of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance each associated with at least a different one or more of the plurality of communication methods. Doing so would enable control of one or more functional operations of the intended target device using different communication protocols.
As per claim 9, claim 8 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon further teaches: the method comprising storing in a memory of the media streaming device the association between each of the plurality of controllable functional operations of the intended target appliance and the at least one of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance (see Negron, e.g., para. [0019]-[0020]; Chardon, e.g., para. [0039] & [0043]).
As per claim 10, claim 8 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon further teaches: the method comprising interrogating the intended target appliance to determine which one or more of the plurality of communication methods are supported by the appliance for use in receiving a command for controlling a corresponding one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance and using results obtained from the interrogation to create the association between each of the plurality of controllable functional operations of the intended target appliance and the at least one of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance (see Negron, e.g., para. [0020]: appliance code data to be used to transmit control commands to the target appliances in appropriate command protocols may be downloaded into command relay device 100 via a network interface(s) 210, 212 either during an initialization phase or on an as required basis; Since downloading would require communication to the appliance to receive appliance code data at the command relay device, the communication between the command relay device and the appliance in this case is considered interrogating; also see Chardon, e.g., para. [0044] & [0066]: “remote-control engine may track the states of the HDMI appliances by transmitting queries to an HDMI appliance receiving a set of CEC command codes via IR communication, RF communication, or other CEC command codes”).
As per claim 11, claim 10 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon further teaches: wherein the media streaming device performs the steps of interrogating the intended target appliance and using results obtained from the interrogation to create the association between each of the plurality of controllable functional operations of the intended target appliance and the at least one of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance (see Negron, e.g., para. [0020]; Chardon, e.g., para. [0044] & [0066]).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negron in view of Chardon, and further in view of Noda.
As per claim 12, claim 8 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon does not explicitly teach: the method comprising prioritizing the one or more of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the functional operations of the intended target appliance.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Noda teaches: prioritizing the one or more of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the functional operations of the intended target appliance (see e.g., col. 5, line 2 to col. 6, line 32; col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 20; col. 19, lines 25-65: an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1: Device 1) configured to communicate with another information processing apparatus (Fig. 1: Device 2) utilizing a plurality of communication protocols; when a device supports a plurality of protocols, by stating the order of priority thereof, the optimal protocol can be used to perform communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Negron in view of Chardon to incorporate the teachings of Noda to provide prioritizing the one or more of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the functional operations of the intended target appliance. Doing so allows to use the most optimal communication method/protocol when the target appliance supports a plurality of communication methods/protocols, as recognized by Noda (col. 8, lines 16-20).
As per claim 13, claim 12 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon and Noda further teaches: wherein the media streaming device responds to the request from the controlling device intended to cause the intended target appliance to perform the at least one of the plurality of functional operations by using a highest prioritized one of the communication methods that has been associated with the at least one of the plurality of functional operations to transmit to the intended target appliance at least one command for controlling the corresponding at least one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance (see Noda, e.g., col. 5, line 2 to col. 6, line 32; col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 20 & col. 19, lines 25-65:).
As per claim 14, claim 13 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon and Noda further teaches: the method comprising causing the media streaming device to use a next highest prioritized one of the communication methods that has been associated with the at least one of the plurality of functional operations to transmit to the intended target appliance at least one further command for controlling the at least one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance when performance of the corresponding at least one of the plurality of functional operations by the intended target appliance in response to transmission of the at least one command via use of the highest prioritized one of the communication methods is unconfirmed (see Noda, e.g., col. 5, line 43 to col. 6, line 5; col. 7, line 41 to col. 8, line 20: the next/lower-priority communication method/protocol is used when the highest prioritized one of the communication methods is not supported).
As per claim 15, claim 12 is incorporated and Negron in view of Chardon and Noda further teaches: the method comprising using at least one characteristic associated with each of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance to prioritize the one or more communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling the corresponding one of the plurality of functional operations of the intended target appliance (see Negron, e.g., para. [0019]-[0020]; Chardon, e.g., para. [0066]; and Noda, e.g., col. 5, line 43 to col. 6, line 5).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negron in view of Hayes et al. (U.S Publication No. 2006/0259184; hereinafter “Hayes”).
As per claim 16, Negron discloses a method for controlling functional operations of a plurality of intended target appliances (para. [0004]: a system and method for enabling control of consumer electronic appliances with a personal communication or entertainment device via a network connected relay device), comprising:
receiving by a media streaming device (Fig.1: command relay device 100) a request from a remote control device (Fig.1: smartphone 102) intended to cause at least one of the plurality of intended target appliances (Fig.1: TV 108, cable set top box 106, or AV receiver 104) to perform at least one functional operation (see e.g., para. [0015]: the command relay device decodes the received control request transmission, ascertains from it a target appliance, for example TV 108, set top box 106, or AV receiver 104, and issues a control command 122); and
causing the media streaming device to use at least one of a plurality of communication methods that has been associated with the at least one of the plurality of intended target appliances to transmit to the at least one of the plurality of intended target appliances at least one command wherein the at least one command is appropriate for controlling the at least one functional operation of the at least one of the plurality of intended target appliances (see e.g., para. [0015]-[0020] & Fig. 7, para. [0057]-[0063]: the command relay device 100 identifies the appropriate appliance code data elements within a preprogrammed library of appliance code data to transmit control commands 122 in a form recognizable by the target appliance, for example an IR or RF signal of the format used by the target appliance's remote control device)
Negron does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of intended target appliances are each associated with at least a different one or more of the plurality of communication methods s.
However, in the same field of home control systems, Hayes teaches: wherein at least two of the plurality of intended target appliances are each associated with at least a different one or more of the plurality of communication methods (see e.g., para. [0054]: “For instance, a user may use one or more remote control units to send dedicated device specific commands to individual appliances, via an appropriate transport medium (e.g., IR, RF, X-10, SCP commands, etc.)”; para. [0062]: “For instance, a “Sleep” macro command for a given home control environment may involve sending IR commands to power off certain legacy appliances, RF commands to power off other appliances, and X-10 or SCP based commands to power off lights, close drapes, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Negron to incorporate the teachings of Hayes to provide at least two of the plurality of intended target appliances each associated with at least a different one or more of the plurality of communication methods. Doing so would enable communication with multiple controllable/intended target appliances and allow the issuance of their operational commands.
As per claim 17, claim 16 is incorporated and Negron in view of Hayes further teaches: the method comprising storing in a memory of the media streaming device the association between each of the plurality of intended target appliances and the at least one of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling a functional operation of the corresponding one of the plurality of intended target appliances (see Negron, e.g., para. [0019]-[0020]; Hayes, e.g., para. [0054]-[0055]: “For instance, a user may use one or more remote control units to send dedicated device specific commands to individual appliances, via an appropriate transport medium (e.g., IR, RF, X-10, SCP commands, etc.) These commands may be in the form of individual commands or may be preprogrammed or user definable macro commands such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,959,751. In most cases such remote controls should be capable of either storing large command databases and/or learning command codes for use with particular appliances”).
As per claim 18, claim 16 is incorporated and Negron in view of Hayes further teaches: the method comprising interrogating each of the plurality of intended target appliances to determine which one or more of the plurality of communication methods are supported by each of the plurality of intended target appliances for use in receiving a command for controlling a functional operation of each of the plurality of intended target appliances and using results obtained from the interrogation to create the association between each of the plurality of intended target appliances and the at least one of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling a functional operation of the corresponding one of the plurality of intended target appliances (see Negron, e.g., para. [0020]: appliance code data to be used to transmit control commands to the target appliances in appropriate command protocols may be downloaded into command relay device 100 via a network interface(s) 210, 212 either during an initialization phase or on an as required basis; Since downloading would require communication to the appliance to receive appliance code data at the command relay device, the communication between the command relay device and the appliance in this case is considered interrogating; and Hayes, e.g., para. [0085]-[0089]: appliance identifier information read from an RFID tag may also be used to retrieve commands appropriate for commanding that appliance).
As per claim 19, claim 18 is incorporated and Negron in view of Hayes further teaches: wherein the media streaming device performs the steps of interrogating each of the plurality of intended target appliances and using results obtained from the interrogation to create the association between each of the plurality of intended target appliances and the at least one of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling a functional operation of the corresponding one of the plurality of intended target appliances (see Negron, e.g., para. [0020]: Hayes, e.g., para. [0035]-[0037] & [0085]-[0089]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negron in view of Hayes, and further in view of Noda.
As per claim 20, claim 16 is incorporated and Negron in view of Hayes does not explicitly teach: the method comprising prioritizing the one or more of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling a functional operation of each of the plurality of intended target appliances.
However, Hayes teaches that the commands transmitted from the remote control may be prioritized for appliances that are determined to be in close proximity to the remote control (see Hayes, para. [0035]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Noda teaches: prioritizing the one or more of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling a functional operation of each of the plurality of intended target appliances (see e.g., col. 5, line 2 to col. 6, line 32; col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 20; col. 19, lines 25-65: an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1: Device 1) configured to communicate with another information processing apparatus (Fig. 1: Device 2) utilizing a plurality of communication protocols; when a device supports a plurality of protocols, by stating the order of priority thereof, the optimal protocol can be used to perform communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Negron in view of Hayes to incorporate the teachings of Noda to provide prioritizing the one or more of the plurality of communication methods to be used when transmitting a command for controlling a functional operation of each of the plurality of intended target appliances. Doing so allows to use the most optimal communication method/protocol when the target appliance supports a plurality of communication methods/protocols, as recognized by Noda (col. 8, lines 16-20).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,410,542; claims 5-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,308; claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,215,394; claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,874; claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,307,178; claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,693,006; and claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853. Although the conflicting claims 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 instant claims.
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.
Deng et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0165555) discloses a wireless control system for digital household appliance comprising a high speed transmission unit that selects one of a plurality of wireless communication protocols when transmitting the control commands to the household appliance.
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@uspto.gov