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 Amendment
The amendments, filed 06/02/2026, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection sets forth below.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr (US Pat. No. 8, 678, 523) in view of Newville et al. (US Pat. No. 12,295,493 hereinafter referred as Newville) and further in view of Johnson et al. (US Pat. No. 11, 421, 445 hereinafter referred as Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, Carr discloses a method for controlling a movable TV (see abstract a universal television lift and enclosure suitable for outdoor use; see col. 9 lines 20-34 the media apparatus includes a sensor configured to receive a signal from a remote control device, and the lift device is operable to move the television between the storage position and the viewing position), the method comprising:
a proximity sensor attached to a casing (see figure 3, col. 9 lines 35-67, safety device includes proximity sensor such as but not limited to a capacitive, inductive, photoelectronic, acoustic, or infra-red beam type sensor);
changing a state of the casing to an open state at a first time point when at least one mobile device is recognized (see col. 10 lines 1-25 the media apparatus is operated to move the television from a storage position in which the television is inside the enclosure for weatherproof storage to a viewing position);
controlling a display module to face the casing at a second time point see (col. 10 lines 1-52 moving the television in any direction).
Claim 1 differs from Carr in that the claim further requires outputting a message inquiring about a state of connection with at least one mobile device on the display module.
In the same field of endeavor Newville discloses movable TV (see figures 1-2), and outputting a message inquiring about a state of connection with the at least one mobile device on the display module (see col. 26 lines 41-67 interfaces providing input to the processors to notify it of actions from a user; the actions can be mediated by a hardware controller that interprets the signals received from input device and communication information to the processor using communication protocol; display outputting various types of output such as network settings). See also col. 25 lines 51-67 the controller can be a phone, tablet, computer, or other suitable electronic device for controlling components and col. 25 lines 16-28.
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Newville it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr by specifically adding the feature of outputting message inquiring about a state of connection in order to notify actions and to distribute operations across multiple network devices.
Claim 1 further differs from Carr and Newville in that the claim further requires recognizing at least one mobile device based on a communication signal received from the at least one mobile device, changing the state of the casing accordingly, and outputting a message associated with the recognized mobile device about a state of communication connection.
In the same field of endeavor Johnson discloses an intelligent door lock system that may be used for various functions (see figure 48). See col. 26 line 52-col. 27 line 37, when the mobile or computing device 210 is within a predetermined proximity of the intelligent door look system 100, the application on the mobile or computing device 210 detects the intelligent door look system 100 and a communications session can be initiated; the token, illustrated as a key 118 in FIG. 20, is exchanged and the lock is triggered to unlock automatically; col. 58 lines 1-16, when the mobile device 210 dwelling user, resource owner, or end-user, resource owner, or end-user returns to its neighborhood, an app of the mobile device 210 prepares to connect to the intelligent door lock system 10 via the system server 510 and/or cloud based server 510 as the mobile device 210 owner approaches an entrance to the dwelling user, resource owner, or end-user the intelligent lock system 10 can automatically unlocks a door 12; see also col. 73 lines 15-26; see col. 26 lines 25-51, “FIG. 20 illustrates a set of interactions between the intelligent door lock system 100, mobile or computing device 210 and intelligent door lock system back-end 68 that may include a pairing process 138 and a lock operation process 140. During the pairing process 138, the intelligent door lock system 100 and mobile or computing device 210 can be paired to each other and also authenticated by the intelligent door lock system back-end 68. Thus, as shown in FIG. 20, during the pairing process, the intelligent door look system 100 is powered on and becomes discoverable, while the mobile or computing device 210 communicates with the intelligent door lock system back-end 68, and has its credentials validated and authenticated. Once the mobile or computing device 210, and the app on the mobile or computing device 210, is authenticated, the mobile or computing device 210 discovers the lock, such as through a Bluetooth discovery process, since the intelligent door look system 100 and the mobile or computing device 210 are within a predetermined proximity to each other. The mobile or computing device 210 may then send a pairing code to the intelligent door look system 100, and in turn receive a pairing confirmation from the intelligent door lock system 100. The pairing process is then completed with the processes illustrated in FIG. 20. The lock operation may include the steps listed in FIG. 20 to operate the intelligent door look system 100 wirelessly using the mobile or computing device 210.”
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a mobile device proximate to a casing and open the casing based on signals received from the mobile device in order to unlock the latches and to safely trigger the enclosure’s release.
Regarding claim 2, Carr discloses the second time point arrives after the first time point, a state of controlling the display module to face the casing includes a state having an angle formed by the display module and the casing of 180 degrees (see col. 2 lines 41-45 and col. 10 lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 3, Carr discloses receiving a power-off signal while the at least one mobile device is being charged via the TV; and setting a lock for a motion of the casing (see col. 7 lines 5-13 and col. 11 lines 6-49). See also Newville’s col. 15 lines 31-52 and col. 25 lines 16-28.
Regarding claim 4, Newville discloses receiving a power-off signal while the at least one mobile device is in contact with the display module; and outputting a guide voice via a speaker installed in the casing (see col. 20 lines 34-43; col. 24 lines 13-44 and line 65-col. 25 line 16). The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Carr discloses when the mobile device includes a plurality of mobile devices, outputting a screen identical to a screen of a first mobile device on the display module; and outputting only a specific event that occurred in a second mobile device on a partial area of the display module (see col. 8 lines 55-67; col. 9 lines 20-24 and col. 11 lines 24-38). See also Carr’s col. 25 lines 50-67 and col. 26 lines 24-57.
Regarding claim 6, Newville discloses the proximity sensor operates by near field communication (NFC) (see col. 9 lines 35-66). See also Johnson’s abstract. The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of claim 7 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 7 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 8-12 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 2-6 respectively above.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights