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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "the function" in lines 10, 12, and 12, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
All claims that are not specifically addressed are rejected due to a dependency.
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 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohanek et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0249677) and Williams et al. (U.S. Patent 6,469,634).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Kohanek discloses a method (as well as a system comprising a memory [Figure 2, item 205] and at least one processor [Figure 2, item 200] coupled to the memory and configured to perform operations for determining functionality and capabilities of a device in a media system [paragraph 0023] as required by Claim 8; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium [paragraph 0023] having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations for determining functionality and capabilities of a device in a media system as required by Claim 15) of automatically determining functionality and capabilities of a device in a media system comprising:
sending, by a media device (Figure 1, item 100), a first operational command to a target device (Figure 1, item 104, paragraphs 0024 and 0036);
determining at least one of a match between information received from the target device in response to the operational command and valid response information, or a mismatch in response to the operational command and the valid response information (paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0040; i.e., determining that the response received from the target device [e.g., STB 104] is a valid response, or alternatively determining that no response is received [the “mismatch in response to the operational command and the valid response information”]), wherein:
when the match between the information received from the target device in response to the operational command and the valid response information is determined, a second operational command is sent to the target device that causes the target device to perform the function (paragraph 0041; i.e., communications [the “second operational command”] with the target device 104 can continue after the media device 100 is successfully paired with the target device 104), or
when the mismatch in response to the operational command and the valid response information is determined, each operational command of a plurality of operational commands is incrementally sent to the target device (paragraphs 0036 and 0040; i.e., different device codes or RF protocols can be attempted in order to pair the media device 100 with the target device 104 if the initial attempt is unsuccessful) until:
a mismatch between additional information received from the target device in response to each operational command of the plurality of operational commands and the valid response information is determined (paragraph 0036; i.e., if no valid codes can be found to pair the controlling device 100 and target device 104, the process is terminated), or
a match between additional information received from the target device in response to at least one operational command of the plurality of operational commands and the valid response information is determined (paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0040; i.e., if a successful code or RF protocol is found, a match is determined and the controlling device 100 and target device 104 can subsequently communicate with each other).
Kohanek does not expressly disclose determining a mismatch between the information received from the target device in response to the operational command and the valid response information (Kohanek instead appears to only determine a mismatch if no response is received from the target device 104); and
determining a mismatch between additional information received from the target device.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., remote control techniques), Williams teaches determining a mismatch between the information received from the target device (Figure 1, item 130) in response to the operational command and the valid response information (Column 8, lines 1-12); and
determining a mismatch between additional information received from the target device (Figure 3, items 310-320, Column 8, lines 22-37; i.e., if the initial command is unsuccessful [e.g., by receiving an invalid/unexpected response], the hardware system 110 attempts another code command to transmit to the target device 130 in a continuous loop 310-320).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Williams’ teachings of remote control techniques with the teachings of Kohanek, for the purpose of making the decision as to whether the command that was sent to the target device was correct faster. More specifically, by analyzing the feedback response from the target device, the controlling device would be able to immediately identify whether it had sent a valid command rather than waiting to not receive the feedback response.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Kohanek discloses wherein the sending the first operational command to the target device comprises sending the first operational command via at least one of a wired interface between the media device and the target device or a wireless interface between the media device and the target device (paragraph 0022; i.e., IR or RF wireless communications).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Kohanek discloses wherein the second operational command is sent to the target device via at least one of a wired interface between the media device and the target device or a wireless interface between the media device and the target device (paragraph 0022; i.e., IR or RF wireless communications).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Kohanek discloses wherein the second operational command is sent to the target device via an infrared signal from a remote control device associated with the media device (paragraphs 0022 and 0036).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, Kohanek discloses wherein the function comprises at least one of: displaying content, transitioning from first state to a second state, or adjusting a volume level of the target device (paragraph 0021; i.e., displaying content on a television).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohanek and Williams as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Arling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0222862).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Kohanek and Williams do not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first operational command or the second operational command comprises a Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) command.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., remote control techniques), Arling teaches wherein at least one of the first operational command or the second operational command comprises a Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) command (paragraph 0018).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Arling’s teachings of remote control techniques with the teachings of Kohanek and Williams, for the purpose of rapidly and conveniently configuring the control device to communicate with the target device (i.e., by using CEC command procedures in place of codes).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Arling teaches wherein at least one of the first operational command or each operational command of the plurality of operational commands comprise an Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) command (paragraph 0018).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a method for automatic determination of display device functionality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights