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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement has been considered and placed in the record on file and is in compliance with USPTO requirements.
Drawings
The Drawings have been considered and placed in the record on file and are in compliance with USPTO requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suyama (US 2017/0301228 A1 hereinafter Suyama).
In regards to claim 1, Suyama discloses a remote-control device comprising:
one or more memories (see figure 2A and paragraph 0032, storage unit 15); and
at least one processor (see figure 2A and paragraph 0033, control unit 11) coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first wireless signal from a first multimedia device (see figure 3, and paragraph 0043, signal 920B);
determining a first signal strength of the first wireless signal (see paragraph 0045, the strength of the signal received depends on the distance);
receiving a second wireless signal from a second multimedia device (see figure 3, and paragraph 0043, signal 930B);
determining a second signal strength of the second wireless signal (see paragraph 0045, the strength of the signal received depends on the distance);
identifying a target multimedia device among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device based on the first signal strength and the second signal strength (see paragraphs 0045-0046, acquiring device ID based on greatest signal strength); and
selecting a wireless communication format for communication with the target multimedia device (see paragraphs 0050 and 0055, remote control communicates with the target device based on the stored information about the target device).
In regards to claim 2, as recited in claim 1, Suyama further discloses wherein, to identify the target multimedia device among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device, the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: comparing the first signal strength to the second signal strength; and identifying a device, among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device, that has a stronger signal strength as the target multimedia device (see paragraph 0045).
In regards to claim 3, as recited in claim 1, Suyama further discloses wherein the wireless communication format comprises at least one of infrared (IR) signal, radio frequency (RF) signal, or Bluetooth (see paragraphs 0050 and 0055, remote control signals include IR, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi).
In regards to claim 8, as recited in claim 1, Suyama further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving an input command from a user; determining a status of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the input command in view of the status of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device (see paragraphs 0044-0045, a button is pressed on the remote device, then the detection unit acquires device IDs and determines which device has the greatest signal strength).
In regards to claim 9, as recited in claim 1, Suyama further discloses wherein the wireless communication format is selected based on user profile information (see paragraph 0093, the user inputs the room name the associated devices to that room are stored with the methods of communicating with those devices, therefore a user profile).
In regards to claim 12, Suyama discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a remote-control device, a first wireless signal from a first multimedia device (see figure 3, and paragraph 0043, signal 920B);
determining a first signal strength of the first wireless signal (see paragraph 0045, the strength of the signal received depends on the distance);
receiving, at the remote-control device, a second wireless signal from a second multimedia device (see figure 3, and paragraph 0043, signal 930B);
determining a second signal strength of the second wireless signal (see paragraph 0045, the strength of the signal received depends on the distance);
identifying a target multimedia device among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device based on the first signal strength and the second signal strength (see paragraphs 0045-0046, acquiring device ID based on greatest signal strength); and
selecting a wireless communication format for communication between the remote-control device and the target multimedia device (see paragraphs 0050 and 0055, remote control communicates with the target device based on the stored information about the target device).
In regards to claim 13, as recited in claim 12, Suyama further discloses wherein identifying the target multimedia device among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device comprises: comparing the first signal strength to the second signal strength; and identifying a device, among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device, that has a stronger signal strength as the target multimedia device (see paragraph 0045).
In regards to claim 14, as recited in claim 12, Suyama further discloses wherein the wireless communication format comprises at least one of infrared (IR) signal, radio frequency (RF) signal, or Bluetooth (see paragraphs 0050 and 0055, remote control signals include IR, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi).
In regards to claim 19, as recited in claim 12, Suyama further discloses further comprising: receiving an input command from a user; determining a status of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the input command in view of the status of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device (see paragraphs 0044-0045, a button is pressed on the remote device, then the detection unit acquires device IDs and determines which device has the greatest signal strength).
In regards to claim 20, Suyama discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a remote-control device, a first wireless signal from a first multimedia device (see figure 3, and paragraph 0043, signal 920B);
determining a first signal strength of the first wireless signal (see paragraph 0045, the strength of the signal received depends on the distance);
receiving, at the remote-control device, a second wireless signal from a second multimedia device (see figure 3, and paragraph 0043, signal 930B);
determining a second signal strength of the second wireless signal (see paragraph 0045, the strength of the signal received depends on the distance);
identifying a target multimedia device among the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device based on the first signal strength and the second signal strength (see paragraphs 0045-0046, acquiring device ID based on greatest signal strength); and
selecting a wireless communication format for communication between the remote-control device and the target multimedia device (see paragraphs 0050 and 0055, remote control communicates with the target device based on the stored information about the target device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama in view of Colmenarez et al. (US 2004/0208588 A1 hereinafter Colmenarez).
In regards to claim 4, as recited in claim 1, Suyama fails to discloses further comprising: a camera chip configured to capture a code uniquely associated with each of the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: identifying the target multimedia device based on the code captured by the camera chip.
Colmenarez teaches further comprising: a camera chip configured to capture a code uniquely associated with each of the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: identifying the target multimedia device based on the code captured by the camera chip (see paragraph 0048, barcode captured by the camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using a camera to capture a code of different devices as taught by Colmenarez, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 15, as recited in claim 12, Suyama fails to disclose further comprising: receiving image data capturing a code uniquely associated with each of the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device, wherein the image data is collected by a camera chip included in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the code captured by the camera chip.
Colmenarez teaches receiving image data capturing a code uniquely associated with each of the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device, wherein the image data is collected by a camera chip included in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the code captured by the camera chip (see paragraph 0048, barcode captured by the camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using a camera to capture a code of different devices as taught by Colmenarez, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
Claims 5-7, 10-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama in view of Tchedikian (US 2017/0213449 A1 hereinafter Tchedikian).
In regards to claim 5, as recited in claim 1, Suyama fails to disclose further comprising: an accelerometer configured to measure an acceleration of the remote-control device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on accelerometer data captured by the accelerometer; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the accelerometer data.
Tchedikian teaches further comprising: an accelerometer configured to measure an acceleration of the remote-control device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on accelerometer data captured by the accelerometer; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the accelerometer data (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an accelerometer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using an accelerometer to determine orientation as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 6, as recited in claim 1, Suyama fails to discloses further comprising: a gyroscope configured to measure a rate of rotation of the remote-control device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on gyroscope data captured by the gyroscope; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the gyroscope data.
Tchedikian teaches further comprising: a gyroscope configured to measure a rate of rotation of the remote-control device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on gyroscope data captured by the gyroscope; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the gyroscope data (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an gyroscope).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using an gyroscope to determine orientation as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 7, as recited in claim 1, Suyama fails to disclose further comprising: a magnetometer configured to measure magnetic field of the remote-control device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on magnetometer data captured by the magnetometer; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the magnetometer data.
Tchedikian teaches further comprising: a magnetometer configured to measure magnetic field of the remote-control device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on magnetometer data captured by the magnetometer; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the magnetometer data (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an magnetometer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using an magnetometer to determine orientation as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 10, as recited in claim 1, Suyama fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: mapping of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device within an indoor location based on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the remote-control device, wherein the mapping includes relative locations between the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device within the indoor location; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the mapping of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device.
Tchedikian teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: mapping of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device within an indoor location based on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the remote-control device, wherein the mapping includes relative locations between the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device within the indoor location; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the mapping of the first multimedia device and the second multimedia device (see paragraphs 0153-0155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include doing a mapping of devices as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 11, as recited in claim 10, Tchedikian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining a change of a location of the remote-control device based on at least one of gyroscope data, accelerometer data, or magnetometer data associated with the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the change of the location of the remote-control device (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an accelerometer, magnetometer, or gyroscope).
In regards to claim 16, as recited in claim 12, Suyama fails to disclose further comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on accelerometer data captured by an accelerometer embedded in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the accelerometer data.
Tchedikian teaches further comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on accelerometer data captured by an accelerometer embedded in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the accelerometer data (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an accelerometer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using an accelerometer to determine orientation as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 17, as recited in claim 12, Suyama fails to disclose further comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on gyroscope data captured by a gyroscope embedded in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the gyroscope data.
Tchedikian teaches further comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on gyroscope data captured by a gyroscope embedded in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the gyroscope data (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an gyroscope).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using an gyroscope to determine orientation as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 18, as recited in claim 12, Suyama fails to disclose further comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on magnetometer data captured by a magnetometer embedded in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the magnetometer data.
Tchedikian teaches further comprising: determining an orientation of the remote-control device in relation to the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device based on magnetometer data captured by a magnetometer embedded in the remote-control device; and identifying the target multimedia device based on the magnetometer data (see paragraphs 0120-0121, orientation is determined using an magnetometer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suyama and include using an magnetometer to determine orientation as taught by Tchedikian, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J KOHLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5503. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J KOHLMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628