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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that Warren in view of Bruhn do not teach the elements of claim 15, which has been amendment in a similar manner to claim 1; remarks page 8.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In this case, claim 15 does not mirror or claim the same elements as claim 1. More specifically, claim 15 fails to capture identifying a geographic location of a set-top box, and determining, based on data representing one or more vacation time period associated with the geographic location of the set-top box, that a user is predicted to be on vacation within a period of time.
Claim 15 fails to appropriately link the functionality between a “receiving device”, “set-top box” and “a media device”, as broadly claimed in claim 15. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner suggests mirroring the features of claim 15 to the allowed features of claim 1.
In this case, Warren clearly teaches a home premise with a control panel 135 that obtains sensor data 110, e.g. GPS location; Paragraphs [0033] [0037] [0055]; wherein the control panel 135 determines that the likelihood of an occupied premise may be calculated based on distance from premises; paragraph [0006]. Once it is determined that the premises will be unoccupied for a predetermined time, e.g. vacation, activating the smart vacation module 215 in control panel 135; Paragraphs [0044] [0047] figures 1-2. Wherein the smart vacation module 215 may turn on and off the television on the user premise; paragraphs [0028] figure 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the control panel 135 of Warren reasonable reads on the claimed “receiving device” and the controlled television of Warren reads on the “media device”. Moreover, Bruhn is merely introduced to show that a user may be a user of a set-top box, as claimed. Bruhn points out that a television receiver, which may include a set top box, may automatically turn on the television display at the day and time that the user watches that television program, and even tune the STB to the station that the television show is on; paragraphs [0050] [0174] figure 1. The examiner notes that the claimed limitations of claim 15 are broad in scope, and the set-top box is not tied to the identified geographic location in any way. Therefore, Warren and Bruhn clearly disclose the features of claim 15.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/01/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 12,244,906 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the set-top box" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since it is the first time that the feature is mentioned is mentioned on the claim, it should be “a set-top box”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (Pub No US 2017/0324577) in view of Bruhn et al. (Pub No US 2017/0191693). Hereinafter, referenced as Warren and Bruhn, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, Warren discloses a method in a receiving device, the method comprising:
identify a geographic area within which the receiving device (e.g. control panel 135) is located, the receiving device being associated with a residence (Paragraphs [0033] [0037] [0055]; control panel receives data from sensor 110, which may include a GPS for positioning, located in the user premises, e.g. home);
determining, based on vacation time data associated with the geographic area (Paragraph [0006]; likelihood of an occupied premise may be calculated based on distance from premises, etc.), that a user is predicted to be absent from the residence during a period of time (Paragraphs [0044] [0047] figures 1-2; determine a likelihood that the premises will be unoccupied for a predetermined time, e.g. vacation, in order to activate the smart vacation module 215 in control panel 135);
and based on the determination that the user is predicted to be absent from the residence during the period of time, transmitting one or more signals activating a media device (e.g. television) included in the residence during the period of time (Paragraphs [0028] figure 1; the smart vacation module 215 may turn on and off the television on the user premise).
However, it is noted that Warren is silent to explicitly disclose a user of the set-top box.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Bruhn discloses a user of the set-top box (Paragraphs [0050] [0174] figure 1; television receiver, which may include a set top box, may automatically turn on the television display at the day and time that the user watches that television program, and even tune the STB to the station that the television show is on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Bruhn, for the predictable result of implementing a home automation system that fits the user’s habits and profile (Bruhn – paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 16, Warren and Bruhn disclose the method of claim 15, however, it is noted that Warren is silent to explicitly disclose selecting media content based on media content history of the user; and transmitting one or more additional signals to the media device to play the selected media content.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Bruhn discloses selecting media content based on media content history of the user; and transmitting one or more additional signals to the media device to play the selected media content (Paragraphs [0050] [0174] figure 1; television receiver, which may include a set top box, may automatically turn on the television display at the day and time that the user watches that television program, and even tune the STB to the station that the television show is on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Bruhn, for the predictable result of implementing a home automation system that fits the user’s habits and profile (Bruhn – paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 18, Warren and Bruhn disclose the method of claim 15; moreover, Warren discloses receiving the vacation time data by: for each respective user of one or more other users, accessing data representing one or more time periods during which the respective user will be absent from a residence associated with the respective user (Paragraph [0055]; modify the likelihood of a type of absence based at least in part on determining the occupants are traveling together such as on vacation, business, etc. Sending a confirmation request based at least in part on the identifying for the occupant associated with the premises to confirm the absence; paragraphs [0005] [0027]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Bruhn further in view of Kennedy et al. (Pub No US 2017/0061779). Hereinafter, referenced as Kennedy.
Regarding claim 17, Warren and Bruhn disclose the method of claim 15; moreover, Warren discloses receiving the vacation time data by: for each entity of one or more entities, access data (Paragraph [0056]; learn characteristics of places the user visits frequently, e.g. school, to predict behavior).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose the access data representing one or more time periods during which the entity will be closed.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kennedy discloses the access data representing one or more time periods during which the entity will be closed (Paragraph [0022]; learn patterns of the user, wherein the system may determine seasonal schedules based on patterns, e.g. out of school months).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kennedy, for the predictable result of taking into account and learning from well-known patterns of activity of the user, including times when they are out of school, in church, etc.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Bruhn further in view of Eberhardt et al. (Patent No US 12,069,144). Hereinafter, referenced as Eberhardt.
Regarding claim 19, Warren and Bruhn disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses that determining that the user is predicted to be absent from the residence during the period of time further comprises: applying the period of time to a model trained to predict whether a user will be absent from a residence during a period of time (Paragraphs [0056] [0061]; determination module 320 may learn characteristics of the user, such as places the occupant regularly visits, times the occupant visits and/or returns from such places, frequency, etc.).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose a machine learning model.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Eberhardt discloses a machine learning model (Col. 4 lines 1-16, col. 51 lines 43-51; learning personalized device routines, e.g. turning on a television, based on learned behavior implementing machine learning models, e.g. neural networks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Eberhardt, for the predictable result of providing hyper personalized experiences, optimizing efficiency and providing higher engagement that takes into account user routines.
Regarding claim 20, Warren and Bruhn disclose the method of claim 19; moreover, Warren discloses predict whether the user will be absent from the residence during a period of time based on historical vacation time data (Paragraphs [0056] [0061]; determination module 320 may learn characteristics of the user, such as places the occupant regularly visits, times the occupant visits and/or returns from such places, frequency, etc.).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose training a machine learning model.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Eberhardt discloses training a machine learning model (Col. 4 lines 1-16, col. 51 lines 43-51; learning personalized device routines, e.g. turning on a television, based on learned behavior implementing machine learning models, e.g. neural networks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Eberhardt, for the predictable result of providing hyper personalized experiences, optimizing efficiency and providing higher engagement that takes into account user routines.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren in view of King (Pub No 2012/0274864). Hereinafter, referenced as King.
Regarding claim 11, Warren discloses a nontransitory processor-readable storage medium that stores at least one of instructions or data, the instructions or data, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving a prediction that a user will be absent from a residence associated with the user for a period of time (Paragraph [0006]; likelihood of an occupied premise may be calculated based on distance from premises, etc.);
based on the received prediction that the user is to be absent from the residence for the period of time, receiving user input (Paragraphs [0005] [0027]; sending a confirmation request based at least in part on the identifying for the occupant associated with the premises to confirm the absence) indicating that the user will be absent from the residence for the period of time (Paragraphs [0044] [0047] figures 1-2; determine a likelihood that the premises will be unoccupied for a predetermined time, e.g. vacation, in order to activate the smart vacation module 215 in control panel 135);
and during the period of time, causing a receiving device (e.g. control panel 135) to transmit one or more signals activating a media device (e.g. television) by transmitting at least one command to control the media device (Paragraphs [0028] figure 1; the smart vacation module 215 may turn on and off the television on the user premise).
However, it is noted that Warren is silent to explicitly disclose transmitting at least one command to a remote-control device that is able to transmit signals to control the media device.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor King discloses transmitting at least one command to a remote-control device (e.g. IR blaster 134) that is able to transmit signals to control the media device (Paragraphs [0034] [0035] figure 1; portable device 138 and STB 130 may transmit commands indirectly to television 126 over IR blaster 134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by King, for the predictable result of implementing an universal translator device that allows multiple home devices to communicate with each other.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and King further in view of Marino et al. (Pub No US 2019/0379887). Hereinafter, referenced as Marino.
Regarding claim 12, Warren and King disclose the nontransitory processor-readable storage medium of claim 11; moreover, Warren discloses a test signal received by the television (Paragraphs [0028] figure 1; the smart vacation module 215 may turn on and off the television on the user premise. The disclosure of the original specification in the instant application defines that a test signal may be a power on command).
However, it is noted that Warren and King are silent to explicitly disclose prior to causing the receiving device to transmit the one or more signals activating the media device, determining whether a test signal was received by the media device
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Marino discloses prior to causing the receiving device to transmit the one or more signals activating the media device (e.g. device ready to be controlled), determining whether a test signal was received by the media device (Paragraphs [0064] [0072] figure 1; sending a test command and verifying that the command was applied correctly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and King by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Marino, for the predictable result of implementing a testing environment that allows the system to determine and verify that a command worked correctly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights