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 .
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,756 B2 in view of Gilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,715,821 B2).
Regarding claim 1 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,756 B2 recites all the limitations of claim 1, except for providing the claimed in response to determining that the functionality of the first device has been enabled, automatically modifying a control matrix stored in a memory of the controlling device. Gilson et al. teach that as a further example, the control system can monitor encodings and unusable control functions to update the best match command codes or code index for the particular device to improve the number of control functions enabled by a particular controller and device combination/pairing (Fig. 3, col. 8, line 18 to col. 9, line 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the update the best match command codes as taught by Gilson et al. into claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,756 B2’s system in order to accurately to control the device.
Regarding claim 2 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,756 B2 recites all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claims 3-7 of this application, claims 2-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,756 B2 recites all the limitations of claims 3-7, respectively.
Regarding claim 8 of this application, the claimed wherein the set of instructions are presented to the user by causing a virtual voice assistant to audiblize the set of instructions is met by once the device manufacturer has been chosen, the user can be presented with a list of code indices the selected manufacturer supports, as an example, the device can be configured to present feedback (e.g., an audible sound, tactile, and/or visual feedback) (Fig. 4, col. 10, lines 38-67 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 9 of this application, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,756 B2 recites all the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10 of this application, the claimed wherein the request to control the functionality of the first device is received via an activation of an input element of the controlling device is met by the first command code can be requested by a controller, in an aspect, the first command code can be a macro (e.g., grouping of command codes), a code index having one or more command codes, or a reference to a command code that is already programmed on the controller remote (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 11 of this application, the claimed wherein the input element comprises a hard key is met by the first command code can be a macro (e.g., grouping of command codes), a code index having one or more command codes, or a reference to a command code that is already programmed on the controller remote (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 12 of this application, the claimed wherein the input element comprises a soft key is met by the first command code can be a macro (e.g., grouping of command codes), a code index having one or more command codes, or a reference to a command code that is already programmed on the controller remote (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 13 of this application, the claimed wherein the request to control the functionality of the first device is received from a second device communicatively coupled to the controlling device is met by the first command code can be transmitted from a database, storage device, user device, terminal, control system 126, or the like, in response to receiving the request for the first command code (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 14 of this application, the claimed wherein the first device comprises a television is met by the display device (TV) 121 and the user device 126 (set top box) (Figs. 1-2A, col. 5, line 20 to col. 6, line 43 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 15 of this application, the claimed wherein the controlling device comprises a media source device coupled to the television is met by the display device (TV) 121 and the user device 126 (set top box) (Figs. 1-2A, col. 5, line 20 to col. 6, line 43 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 16 of this application, the claimed wherein the controlling device comprises a hand-held remote control device is met by the remote control 128 (Fig. 2A, col. 6, lines 21-43 of Gilson et al.).
Regarding claim 17 of this application, the claimed further comprising transmitting from the remote control device to an intermediate device a signal to cause the intermediate device to control the television according to the modified command matrix is met by the control system 126 can be configured to communicate with a control device or controller 128 to transmit encoding to the controller 128 to enable the controller to control one or more devices (Figs. 1-2A, col. 6, lines 10-67 of Gilson et al.).
Claims 18-21 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 14-17, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Gilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,715,821 B2).
In considering claim 1, Gilson et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed causing a first data that identifies the first device to be used to determine that the first device supports the functionality is met by in step 300 a pairing code can be received by the device (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, lines 7-33), 2) the claimed in response to determining that the function of the first device is not enabled, causing a set of instructions for enabling the functionality of the first device to be presented to a user is met by presenting a stored device option (e.g., stored device screen 310) to a user to allow selection of a stored encoding as the control option, at step 312 (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 18 to col. 9, line 13), 3) the claimed in response to the user providing input to the first device in accordance with the set of instructions, enabling by the first device the functionality of the first device is met by presenting a stored device option (e.g., stored device screen 310) to a user to allow selection of a stored encoding as the control option, at step 312 (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 18 to col. 9, line 13), and 4) the claimed in response to determining that the functionality of the first device has been enabled, automatically modifying a control matrix stored in a memory of the controlling device is met by the control system can monitor encodings and unusable control functions to update the best match command codes or code index for the particular device to improve the number of control functions enabled by a particular controller and device combination/pairing (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 18 to col. 9, line 13).
In considering claim 2, the claimed wherein modifying the control matrix comprises indicating within the control matrix that a Consumer Electronics Control ("CEC") type command is to be used instead of an infrared type command when seeking to control the functionality of the first device is met by determining consumer electronics control (CEC) is enable on the device (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 18 to col. 9, line 13).
In considering claim 3, the claimed wherein causing the first data that identifies the first device to be used to determine that the first device supports the functionality comprises causing the first data to be used to locate an entry in a data store that corresponds to the first device and wherein the entry in the data store stores data that indicates that the first device supports the functionality is met by if the device has previously stored command codes associated therewith, a stored device option (e.g., stored device screen 310) can be presented to a user to allow selection of a stored encoding as the control option, at step 312 (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 7 to col. 9, line 13).
In considering claim 4, the claimed wherein causing the first data that identifies the first device to be used to determine that the first device supports the functionality comprises causing the first data to be provided to an artificial intelligence engine adapted to use the first data to identify a second device that the artificial intelligence engine determines is an equivalent to the first device, causing a second data that identifies the second device to be used to locate an entry in a data store that corresponds to the second device, wherein the entry in the data store stores data that indicates that the second device supports the functionality, and using the data that indicates that the second device supports the functionality to predict that the first device supports the functionality is met by the managing control functions and/or features of one or more devices can employ Artificial Intelligence techniques (Fig. 9, col. 15, line 64 to col. 16, line 51 and col. 19, line 64 to col. 20, line 6).
In considering claim 5, the claimed wherein the first data comprises data provided to configure a remote control to communicate commands to the first device is met by in step 300 a pairing code can be received by the device (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, lines 7-33).
In considering claim 7, the claimed wherein a communications link between the first device and a second device is monitored to determine that the functionality of the first device is not enabled is met by if CEC is not enabled or selected, the control system can determine whether a command code had previously been stored for a particular device, at step 308 (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 18 to col. 9, line 13).
In considering claim 8, the claimed wherein the set of instructions are presented to the user by causing a virtual voice assistant to audiblize the set of instructions is met by once the device manufacturer has been chosen, the user can be presented with a list of code indices the selected manufacturer supports, as an example, the device can be configured to present feedback (e.g., an audible sound, tactile, and/or visual feedback) (Fig. 4, col. 10, lines 38-67).
In considering claim 9, the claimed wherein the set of instructions are presented to the user by causing a display device to display the set of instructions is met by if the device has previously stored command codes associated therewith, a stored device option (e.g., stored device screen 310) can be presented to a user to allow selection of a stored encoding as the control option, at step 312 (Figs. 2-3, col. 8, line 7 to col. 9, line 13).
In considering claim 10, the claimed wherein the request to control the functionality of the first device is received via an activation of an input element of the controlling device is met by the first command code can be requested by a controller, in an aspect, the first command code can be a macro (e.g., grouping of command codes), a code index having one or more command codes, or a reference to a command code that is already programmed on the controller remote (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37).
In considering claim 11, the claimed wherein the input element comprises a hard key is met by the first command code can be a macro (e.g., grouping of command codes), a code index having one or more command codes, or a reference to a command code that is already programmed on the controller remote (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37).
In considering claim 12, the claimed wherein the input element comprises a soft key is met by the first command code can be a macro (e.g., grouping of command codes), a code index having one or more command codes, or a reference to a command code that is already programmed on the controller remote (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37).
In considering claim 13, the claimed wherein the request to control the functionality of the first device is received from a second device communicatively coupled to the controlling device is met by the first command code can be transmitted from a database, storage device, user device, terminal, control system 126, or the like, in response to receiving the request for the first command code (Fig. 4, col. 9, line 14 to col. 10, line 37).
In considering claim 14, the claimed wherein the first device comprises a television is met by the display device (TV) 121 and the user device 126 (set top box) (Figs. 1-2A, col. 5, line 20 to col. 6, line 43).
In considering claim 15, the claimed wherein the controlling device comprises a media source device coupled to the television is met by the display device (TV) 121 and the user device 126 (set top box) (Figs. 1-2A, col. 5, line 20 to col. 6, line 43).
In considering claim 16, the claimed wherein the controlling device comprises a hand-held remote control device is met by the remote control 128 (Fig. 2A, col. 6, lines 21-43).
In considering claim 17, the claimed further comprising transmitting from the remote control device to an intermediate device a signal to cause the intermediate device to control the television according to the modified command matrix is met by the control system 126 can be configured to communicate with a control device or controller 128 to transmit encoding to the controller 128 to enable the controller to control one or more devices (Figs. 1-2A, col. 6, lines 10-67).
Claims 18-21 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 14-17, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,715,821 B2) in view of Asnis et al. (US Patent No. 10,447,537 B2).
In considering claim 6, Gilson et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein the first data comprises a device identifying fingerprint constructed from information received from the first device. Asnis et al. teach that in 704, data may be collected on the DUT for purpose of generating an identification (sometimes called a fingerprint herein) of the DUT, the data collected in step 704 represents attributes, features and/or characteristics of the DUT (Fig. 7, col. 8, lines 27-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fingerprint as taught by Asnis et al. into Gilson et al.’s system in order to accurately identify the device.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barnett et al. (US Patent No. 9,215,394 B2) disclose system and method for optimized appliance control.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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.
May 29, 2026
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights