US 10162596

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 10,162,596 (US10162596B2)

Bibliographic data (verified against USPTO-derived sources: uspto.report and Google Patents)

Note on data discrepancy: Google Patents shows priority date 2000-11-01, while some secondary databases (e.g., Unified Patents) list 2000-10-31. The patent's own cross-reference section states the provisional was filed Nov. 1, 2000; I treat the patent text as authoritative. Also, Google Patents flags a legal-status assumption of "Expired – Fee Related" with adjusted expiration of 2022-10-01; that status notation is not a legal conclusion and should be verified in USPTO PAIR/Patent Center if relied upon.

Abstract (verbatim)

A portable electronic device configured for receiving voice activated commands for wirelessly managing or driving an output device. The output device may include, for example, a television, a controller connectable to a television, a printer, an audio output device, or a projector. The portable electronic device includes an interface that includes at least one button or other controls, a microphone, and wireless communication circuitry. Subsequent to establishing, within a physical proximity, a wireless connection to the output device using the wireless communication circuitry, the portable electronic device is operable for receiving an indication from a user via the interface, for wirelessly sending information to the output device related to the indication, and for wirelessly receiving data or component from the output device in response to having sent the information. Additionally, the portable electronic device is configured to receive voice activated commands from the user via the microphone.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has three independent claims (1, 8, 14), all directed to the same core concept: a portable device (e.g., a phone/tablet/remote) that pairs wirelessly with an output device (TV, projector, speaker, printer, etc.) and can both exchange data/components with it and accept voice commands to drive it.

• Claim 1 (apparatus — portable electronic device): A portable device with a microphone, a user interface (at least one button or other controls), and wireless communication circuitry. The device is operable to: (1) receive a user indication via the interface relating to managing/driving the output device; (2) wirelessly send information to the output device based on that indication; (3) wirelessly receive data or a component back from the output device in response; (4) then receive a voice-activated command via the microphone; and (5) wirelessly transmit audio/sound data to the output device related to that voice command. In short: a wireless remote/controller that first handshakes with an output device (send info → get data/component back), then takes a voice command and streams corresponding audio to the device.

• Claim 8 (medium — non-transitory computer-readable recording medium): A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a portable device (having microphone, interface with button/controls, wireless circuitry) to: (1) wirelessly detect an output device based on physical proximity; (2) wirelessly connect to it; (3) receive a user indication via the interface relating to managing/driving the connected device; (4) wirelessly receive information/data from the output device in response to the indication; and (5) receive a voice-activated command via the microphone for controlling/managing/driving the connected device. This is the software/method-side counterpart of claim 1, adding explicit proximity-based discovery/connection steps.

• Claim 14 (apparatus — wireless communication circuitry): Wireless communication circuitry for use in a portable electronic device that supports voice commands. The circuitry is configured to: (1) detect a wireless output device based on physical distance; (2) connect to it; (3) send first information to the device; (4) receive second information from the device in response; and, after the portable device receives a voice-activated command from the user, (5) transmit audio/sound data related to that command to the connected device. This claim is drafted to the communication circuitry itself rather than the whole device.

Dependent claims (2–7, 9–13, 15–20) add limitations such as: the device being a Bluetooth-enabled controller, digital pad, or smart phone; the output device being a TV, TV-connected output controller, projector, audio output device, or display; IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth-compatible chipsets; the second received information including data, components, attribute/user-interface/status information; and executable software at the device.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

• CAFC 2026 docket: My searches of CAFC docket references for "10162596" (including 2025–2026 appeal terms) returned no Federal Circuit appeal docket for this specific patent. If an appeal exists, it is not surfacing in the searched sources as of today's date (2026-04-26).
• District court activity involving the '596 patent:
  • Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.) — the '596 patent was among seven asserted patents; case dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on May 29, 2025 (per PatSnap litigation summary). The dismissal does not invalidate the patent.
  • Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., 2:25-cv-00960 (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 18, 2025; Judge Rodney Gilstrap; open) — the '596 patent is asserted with claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 against LG "Accused TV Remotes" and "Accused Apps" (per the complaint analysis).
  • The Google Patents page also lists a first-family-worldwide litigation entry (Darts-ip) and prior E.D. Tex. matters in the Flexiworld portfolio.

Uncertainty notes

• The "Expired – Fee Related" status and the exact adjusted expiration date (2022-10-01) come from Google Patents' non-authoritative legal-status field; I could not independently confirm maintenance-fee status via a live USPTO query in these searches.
• The exact filing date of parent application 12/903,048 appears as "Oct. 10, 2012" in the patent's own cross-reference text but as "Dec 11, 2012" (likely its issue date) in the uspto.report family table; I have followed the patent's own text.
• No CAFC docket for this patent was found; absence of a result is not proof that no appeal exists.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 10162596.

The initial searches identify one case. Let me verify details and check the second litigation reference noted on Google Patents (2:25-cv-00960).

I have two cases identified. Let me confirm the LG case parties and check the Unified Patents litigation portal references.

Based on my searches, I have identified the known litigation involving US Patent 10162596. Here is the summary:

Litigation involving US Patent 10162596 ("Portable electronic device configured to receive voice activated commands and to wirelessly manage or drive an output device")

Case 1 — Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation

• Case number: 2:23-cv-00616
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Sony Corporation
• Filing date: December 19, 2023
• Patents-in-suit: US10162596B2 was one of seven patents asserted (along with US9836259B2, US11096056B2, US9798516B2, US9042811B2, US10768871B2, and US11029903B2)
• Presiding judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap
• Status/Outcome: Closed — dismissed with prejudice. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice (Dkt. No. 42) under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), covering "all pending claims and counterclaims." The Court acknowledged and accepted the dismissal with prejudice; each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No merits ruling was issued. (Per PatSnap's PACER-based analysis, the dismissal occurred on or about May 29, 2025, after 527 days of litigation.)

Case 2 — Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

• Case number: 2:25-cv-00960
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendants: LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (also referred to as LG Electronics USA Incorporated)
• Filing date: September 18, 2025
• Patents-in-suit: US10162596B2 was one of six patents asserted (along with US9042811B2, US9836259B2, US9965233B2, US10140072B2, and US10037178B2)
• Asserted claims of '596: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, directed to accused LG TV remotes and associated apps (allegedly providing voice-activated control of output devices such as TVs/speakers)
• Presiding judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap
• Status/Outcome: Open/pending as of the latest available information (filed September 2025; summons returned executed, complaint and AO 120 filed; no merits ruling or disposition found in searches).

Sources consulted: Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10162596), RPX Empower / Ex Parte case records, PatSnap litigation analysis (citing PACER Docket for 2:23-cv-00616), PacerMonitor case pages, and the LG complaint analysis for 2:25-cv-00960.

Caveat: I could not access the live Unified Patents litigation portal directly (search tool limit reached), but the two case numbers it lists on the Google Patents record for US10162596 — 2:23-cv-00616 and 2:25-cv-00960 — match the two cases identified above. Case 2's status is current as of the information available in the search results; for the most up-to-date docket status, PACER (case 2:25-cv-00960) should be checked directly.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) are on file for U.S. Patent No. 10,162,596. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) feed for this patent contains no PTAB trials, and independent web searching (PTAB case aggregators, Unified Patents, PatSnap, CourtListener, and general web) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming the '596 patent as the challenged patent. The defensive posture is therefore the neutral one: every claim (1–20) remains in force and completely untested at the PTAB — there is no IPR estoppel (§ 315(e)(2)) binding any current or future defendant, and the patent's validity has never been adjudicated in an AIA trial.

No proceedings to report

There are no individual proceedings to itemize. To be transparent about what the search did surface (so you don't mistake it for activity on this patent):

• IPR2023-00845 — Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,609,402 (a different, earlier Flexiworld patent, application 10/053,651) — not the '596 patent. Status: Institution Denied (Decision Denying Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314, issued 2023-11-17). Petitioner's refund was approved 2024-01-24. This tells you the PTAB has recently scrutinized — and rejected — a Flexiworld wireless-output petition on the merits, but it has no preclusive effect on the '596 patent.
• Unified Patents ex parte reexamination of RE48,066 (filed 2023-05-23) — an ex parte reexamination, not an AIA trial, and directed to a different Flexiworld data-mining patent. Not relevant to § 311–319 practice on '596.
• District-court-only activity: Flexiworld v. Sony, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.) — dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation 2025-05-29, no merits ruling (per PatSnap/PACER); and Flexiworld v. LG Electronics, 2:25-cv-00960 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-09-18, Judge Gilstrap, open) asserting claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13 of '596 against "Accused TV Remotes" and "Accused Apps." No IPR has yet been filed in connection with either case, and no CAFC appeal of any PTAB decision exists for this patent (there is no PTAB decision to appeal).

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status: all 20 claims (1–20) are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim of '596 has been canceled, no claim has been sustained in a Final Written Decision, and no institution decision — grant or denial — has ever been entered for this patent. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 (device, medium, and wireless-circuitry forms of the voice-command/output-device concept) and all dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 remain exactly as issued on 2018-12-25. The only "narrowing" events in the patent's history are prosecution-side: the continuation chain back to the 2000 provisional and the 2016 continuation filing that produced the '596 itself.

Estoppel landscape — clean slate for any petitioner. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted against this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds no one. A defendant sued today (e.g., in the LG case) is free to raise every ground available: § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and § 112 written-description/indefiniteness, over any prior art — including art that post-dates the 2000 priority date but predates the 2016 filing, a gap that matters enormously for this family because claim language was amended and re-presented across the 2001 → 2012 → 2016 continuations. The one timing trap to watch is § 315(b): an IPR petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint asserting the patent. For the LG matter (filed 2025-09-18), that deadline is fast approaching — a would-be petitioner cannot afford to wait for an institution decision in someone else's case.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner exists for this patent (zero petitions). Flexiworld has, however, been a frequent district-court assertor (Sony, LG, Hisense, Lexmark matters), and the PTAB's 2023 denial of institution in IPR2023-00845 on a sibling patent shows the Board will engage with — and reject — weak Flexiworld challenges. There is no defensive-aggregator chain (e.g., Unified Patents) on this patent; Unified's only Flexiworld activity is the separate RE48,066 reexamination. The absence of any IPR after two-plus years of active assertion (Sony 2023, LG 2025) is itself a mild signal: either no defendant has yet identified strong enough art, or defendants are holding fire pending the LG case's claim-construction posture. It is not evidence the patent is strong — it is evidence the patent has not been tested.

Recommended next steps

• If you are the defendant in the LG case (or expect a demand letter): there is no PTAB decision to cite because none exists. Do not let anyone represent otherwise. Your realistic PTAB path is a de novo IPR petition — and § 315(b) means the one-year clock from service of the LG complaint is your hard deadline. Prioritize prior art dated 2000–2015 to attack the continuation-added claim language (the 2012 and 2016 filings are the weak underbelly of this family; art between the 2000 priority date and those filings defeats the "new matter" claim scope without being barred).
• Run a pre-petition search now, not later: the § 112 and § 103 angles on independent claims 1, 8, and 14 (e.g., "receiving data or component from the output device in response to having sent the information," and the voice-command-plus-audio-transmission limitation) have never been litigated at the Board. The claim charting in IPR2023-00845 (against the sibling '402 patent) is publicly available and shows how the Board evaluates Flexiworld's wireless-output claim language — a useful template, not a bar.
• Verify maintenance-fee status before spending money: Google Patents flags an "Expired – Fee Related" notation with adjusted expiration 2022-10-01. That field is not authoritative. Confirm the fee status and any terminal-disclaimer/reissue activity in USPTO Patent Center/PAIR before investing in a petition — a dead patent needs no IPR.
• Monitor the LG docket (2:25-cv-00960, E.D. Tex.) for the court's claim-construction order; if LG or a co-defendant files an IPR, the PTAB will likely be the first tribunal to construe these claims, and that construction will drive settlement leverage in the district case.
• If you are evaluating the patent for acquisition or licensing: the "no IPR ever filed" posture cuts both ways — it means no adverse PTAB record exists to cite in renegotiation, but it also means the patent has no track record of surviving scrutiny. Treat the patent's validity as fully open, and price it accordingly.

Bottom line, stated plainly: there are no PTAB proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 10,162,596 — none filed, none instituted, none decided, none appealed. All 20 claims stand as issued, untested and unhardened, and the PTAB door is open to any defendant who moves before the § 315(b) one-year bar closes.

Ownership chain analysis — US Patent 10,162,596 (US10162596B2)

Scope note on sources. USPTO's live Assignment Center could not be queried directly within this session's search budget. The chain-of-title facts below are drawn from the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent (fetched 2026-08-28), the patent's own front page, and litigation documents (Epson answer admissions citing sibling-family reel/frames). Where a reel/frame could not be retrieved, I say so explicitly rather than reconstructing it. Verify final numbers at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Inventors

Pattern check: Both inventors are the principals of the original assignee (founder + co-inventor), not departing employees. The "all inventors leave within 12 months" precursor to a portfolio fire-sale is not present.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., Vancouver, WA.
• Line of business: Founded 2001 as a seed-funded software startup; developed the "FlexiCore" wireless-printing/output technology infrastructure ("print to ALL printers of ALL brands" from mobile devices, wireless presentation control, etc.).
• Products embodying the claims: No evidence found of a commercial product shipped by Flexiworld embodying the voice-activated wireless-output claims. The company's current public footprint (its own executive bio) emphasizes patent counts, consulting to "listed technology companies" in the US and chip companies in Taiwan/China, and licensing — not product sales.
• Current status: Operating/active as a legal entity (Crunchbase lists "Active"; the company website remains up), but its observable activity is patent assertion — it is the plaintiff in the Sony (2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex.), LG (2:25-cv-00960, E.D. Tex., open), and Epson litigations and has faced an IPR (Roku, IPR2022-01267, on sibling US9836257). Notably, in October 2020 Chang restructured a German entity as Flexiworld Technologies GmbH, Munich, whose stated corporate purpose is the "development, purchase, sale, holding, licensing and/or management of intellectual property, particularly patents" (German commercial register, HRB entry). That GmbH is not a recorded USPTO assignee of the '596 patent; it is context for how the founder organizes IP monetization.

Assignment timeline

Finding: the USPTO/Google Patents record for US10162596 shows exactly ONE recorded conveyance. There are no recorded post-issuance assignments — no transfer to an LLC, no security agreement, no merger. This is itself a finding: the original assignee still owns the patent.

• Executed: not retrieved in this session / recorded 2016-09-21 — Reel not retrieved in this session (Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent does not display the reel/frame; sibling-family reel/frames recorded at 042385/0202, 043675/0454, and 046519/0534 per Epson's admissions suggest the family's recordations cluster in the 2018–2019 reel range, but I will not assign a number to this patent without a source)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (recorded against application 15/201,194, filed 2016-07-01; this is the standard re-recordation of the inventors' assignment onto a continuation application — the underlying assignment was originally executed in connection with the Nov. 1, 2001 filing)
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (Vancouver, WA)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in this session — no correspondent name is visible in the sources available, so the repeat-correspondent analysis cannot be performed from the recorded chain.
  • Context: original inventor-to-company assignment (internal chain-perfecting recordation on a continuation; ownership never left the original assignee).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10162596
    2000 : Provisional filed Nov 1
    2001 : US application filed
    2016 : Inventors assign to Flexiworld
    2018 : Patent issued Dec 25
    2023 : Sony suit filed ED Tex
    2025 : LG suit filed ED Tex

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment ever moved the patent from an operating company to a licensing-only LLC; the chain contains a single inventors→Flexiworld conveyance. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is the original assignee, not a transferee. (Context only: the founder separately formed Flexiworld Technologies GmbH in Munich in 2020 with an IP-licensing purpose — but that entity never appears in this patent's USPTO chain of title.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (weak-to-moderate). Flexiworld is not on the enumerated classic list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, etc.), but it is exactly the "high-frequency plaintiff" profile the checklist contemplates: it asserts this same continuation family serially against Sony (2:23-cv-00616), LG (2:25-cv-00960, still open), and Epson, and the Unified Patents litigation dataset linked from this patent's own Google Patents page flags both E.D. Tex. cases. The asserter is the original assignee itself rather than a transferee, which weakens the classic chain-of-title version of this signal.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNKNOWN. Only one recorded conveyance exists and its correspondent was not retrievable in this session. No recurrence analysis is possible.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. No chained LLC transfers in any time window; the chain is static.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment of any kind precedes the 2023 or 2025 infringement suits; ownership has been constant since the 2016 recordation (and in substance since 2001). Venue/standing were not arranged via the recorded chain.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Flexiworld has no Chapter 7/11 proceeding in the record, and no patents were sold out of a bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert against its competitors; Flexiworld asserts in its own name.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inverse signal: the patent is not neutralized; it remains an active enforcement asset (LG case pending; IPR2022-01267 by Roku on sibling US9836257 shows the portfolio is being fought, not aggregated).

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The recorded chain shows no shell transfers, no cascades, and no pre-suit transfer — the classic chain-of-title NPE architecture is absent, and Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. has owned the patent continuously since the 2016 recordation of the inventors' assignment. However, the sole owner is a seed-funded, founder-controlled company with no demonstrated products embodying the claims, that behaves as a serial high-volume plaintiff (Sony 2:23-cv-00616; LG 2:25-cv-00960; Epson) and whose founder organized a Munich entity in 2020 whose stated purpose is IP licensing and management. That is one moderately strong signal (repeat asserter with no product base) plus supporting context, but the single-record chain and the absence of any known-list match keep this below high confidence. A live USPTO Assignment Center query (by patent number 10162596) is the recommended verification step to capture the reel/frame and correspondent that this session could not retrieve.

Verification links: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ · https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html · https://patents.google.com/patent/US10162596/en

I'll search for the USPTO record and cited references for US 10,162,596.

Let me target the actual cited-reference table for this patent.

Prior-art / citation analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,162,596 (US10162596B2)

Task recap: locate the USPTO record for 10162596 specifically, extract its cited references, and assess each for § 102 anticipation.

1. What I was able to retrieve — and what I was not

Flagged contradiction (carried forward, not resolved): the patent's own text and Google Patents give the priority date as 2000-11-01, while the Unified Patents litigation entry surfaced in this session lists US-10162596-B2, Priority Date: 2000-10-31. The patent text remains authoritative here; the one-day delta is immaterial to § 102(b) analysis.

2. The cited references on the face of US 10,162,596 (U.S. patents)

The following list is the U.S.-patent citation set recorded for grant 10162596. It is truncated at U.S. 5,862,321; the remainder of the U.S. citations, all foreign patent documents, and all non-patent literature were not retrievable in this session. Treat the list as incomplete.

Date caveat, stated up front: I could not verify issue dates against the USPTO for this session. The dates below are estimates derived from the sequential weekly issuance of U.S. utility patent numbers (anchored on the 5.49M–5.86M range, which spans roughly Feb 1996 to Jan 1999). They are marked "" and must be verified before being used in any filing. Inventor names are reproduced exactly as recorded.

Two legally significant observations about this list:

1. Every dated entry falls in the 1996–1999 window — i.e., all issued more than one year before the 2000-11-01 priority date. They therefore qualify as pre-AIA § 102(b) prior art (printed publications/patents) regardless of the (unresolved) 2000-10-31 vs. 2000-11-01 discrepancy. They cannot, however, be § 102(e) art in light of later Flexiworld filings, because they all pre-date everything.
2. The list is truncated at 5,862,321 and, on its face, appears to contain no voice-recognition/voice-command reference. I cannot confirm that absence because the remainder of the list was not retrieved. If it holds, it is meaningful: the '596 claims are voice-centric, and an examiner citation set consisting purely of wireless-communication, printing/driver, and portable-computing art implies the allowance turned on the voice-activated-command limitations — and, correspondingly, that the § 102 exposure lies outside this list, in voice-command art the examiner did not cite. That would be the first place a challenger should look.

3. § 102 anticipation analysis, claim by claim

Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every limitation, arranged as in the claim. Applying that standard to the claim structure summarized previously (claims 1–7 device; 8–13 medium; 14–20 circuitry):

Claim 1 requires, in combination: (i) a portable electronic device with microphone + button/control interface + wireless circuitry; (ii) a wireless connection established within a physical proximity to the output device; (iii) receipt of a user indication relating to managing/driving that device; (iv) wireless transmission of information to the device; (v) wireless reception of data or a component back from the device in response; and (vi) receipt of a voice-activated command via the microphone followed by wireless transmission of audio/sound data to the output device.

• No reference in the retrieved list is a plausible § 102(a) anticipation of claim 1. Items 38 (Kikinis 5,822,230) and 47 (Lamming 5,862,321) might supply the local-wireless-device / document-distribution legs; none of the entries is identified as disclosing a microphone-based voice command that is then wirelessly forwarded to the connected output device. Element (vi) is unmet on the face of the record.
• Conclusion: claim 1 — no single-reference anticipation on this record; § 103 combination only. Confidence: moderate-to-high on the negative, given the list is truncated.

Claim 8 (medium; adds explicit "wirelessly detect an output device based on physical proximity" and "wirelessly connect" steps plus "receive information/data from the output device in response") — the same analysis applies, but the discovery limitations are more susceptible to single-reference disclosure because they are the classic subject matter of the cited 1996–1999 Bluetooth/local-link art. Still no full anticipation unless one reference also discloses the voice-command limitation. § 103 only.

Claim 14 (wireless communication circuitry) is the most vulnerable of the three and the only claim in the set that a single 1996–1999 reference could conceivably anticipate, because it is drafted at the lowest level of structural specificity: detect an output device based on physical distance → connect → send first information → receive second information in response → after a voice-activated command is received, transmit audio/sound data to the device.

• Candidate single-reference threats to claim 14: US 5,822,230 (Kikinis) and US 5,862,321 (Lamming), and the untruncated portion of the citation list, which I could not read.
• I cannot assert that either discloses the voice-command → audio-transmission limitation, because I was unable to retrieve and read their full texts. I am flagging them as the first references to pull and read in full, not as established anticipatory art.

Dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, 15–20 (Bluetooth-enabled controller / digital pad / smart phone form factors; IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth chipsets; TV, TV-connected output controller, projector, audio output device, display; status/attribute/user-interface data; executable software) — these add conventional limitations that do not create independent § 102 exposure; they rise or fall with the independents.

Bottom line for § 102: on the retrieved (partial) record, there is no reference that individually anticipates any of claims 1–20. The cited set is a § 103 combination set, not an anticipation set. The genuine § 102 risk for claim 14 — and only claim 14 — lies in references whose full text I could not verify.

4. High-value prior-art leads surfaced outside the face-of-patent list

These came from the related-family citation network on the Unified Patents portal (retrieved in this session for US-10740066-B2, a sibling). They are NOT confirmed to be cited on the '596 face, and the same list also contains the '596 patent itself plus other Flexiworld family members — i.e., it is a citation-network list, not a prior-art list. All of the following have pre-2000-11-01 priority dates and are the most promising § 102/§ 103 candidates for the proximity-discovery and device-side-component-download limitations:

5. Confidence statement and required verification steps

My § 102 conclusions rest on a partial citation list and unverified reference texts. Specifically:

1. I did not read the full text of any cited reference. The "brief description" column above is honestly "not verified" for 45 of 47 entries; the two exceptions (Kikinis 5,822,230, Lamming 5,862,321) are moderate-confidence recollections that must be confirmed.
2. Issue dates are estimates derived from sequential U.S. patent numbering, not from USPTO records. Verify every date.
3. The list is truncated at US 5,862,321; the remainder of the U.S. citations, plus all foreign patent documents and all non-patent literature, are unknown to me. The three "references" most likely to change the § 102 picture are in the unread portion.

To close these gaps, retrieve, in this order:

• The front page of the US10162596B2 PDF (the "(56) References Cited" block) — this is the single fastest source and gives the complete U.S., foreign, and NPL lists with dates.
• USPTO Patent Center for application 15/201,194, document "Notice of Allowance dated Aug 9, 2018" (listed in the family's own NPL set) — it will show exactly which references the examiner applied and against which claims, resolving the "was any voice art cited?" question.
• Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) full-text queries on the two candidate references for claim 14 — US 5,822,230 and US 5,862,321 — for the terms microphone, voice, speech, and audio, to test whether either discloses the voice-command → audio-transmission limitation.

Until those three steps are done, the defensible statement is: the face-of-patent citations for US 10,162,596 are § 103 combination art in the 1996–1999 wireless-communication, printing/driver, and portable-computing space; none of them individually anticipates claims 1–20 on the record available, and the only credible single-reference § 102 candidate is a claim-14 attack built on Kikinis 5,822,230 or Lamming 5,862,321 — contingent on full-text verification I could not complete in this session.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,162,596 (US10162596B2) under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sourcing, and confidence caveats

The fetched Google Patents text supplied for this patent does not include the "Prior Art" / "Citations" section (the fetched HTML dropped the cited-reference table). I therefore retrieved the USPTO face-of-patent reference list from the uspto.report record for grant 10162596. That search returned a partial list of U.S. patents cited during prosecution (truncated at 5,862,321). I can confirm the existence of those citations, but I could not retrieve the full list (the remainder of the U.S. citations, foreign patents, and non-patent literature) or the full text of each cited patent. Where I describe the content of a specific cited patent, I flag my confidence; where I cannot verify content, I say so rather than fabricate. The element-by-element mapping below therefore combines (a) the confirmed cited references, and (b) well-documented, high-confidence state-of-the-art knowledge as of the priority date (Nov. 1, 2000).

The claims are analyzed from the plain-language summaries in the previously generated sections of this analysis (claims 1, 8, and 14; dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, 15–20), which I treat as authoritative.

1. Legal framework and applicable law

• Pre-AIA § 103 applies. Although the '596 patent issued in 2018 from an application filed July 1, 2016, it is a continuation in a chain reaching back to application 10/016,223 (filed Nov. 1, 2001) and Provisional 60/245,101 (Nov. 1, 2000). Because the chain began before March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA version of § 103 governs. For prior-art purposes, the claims are entitled to the Nov. 1, 2000 priority date (assuming written-description support in the earlier disclosures, which is the normal posture for this family).
• Consequence: a reference must have been prior art before Nov. 1, 2000 to qualify. Every confirmed citation in the partial list is dated 1996–1999, so all qualify under pre-AIA § 102(b).
• Graham framework: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations.
• KSR v. Teleflex (2007): a flexible, common-sense inquiry. A combination of known elements is obvious if it yields predictable results, if there was a design need or market pressure to solve a known problem, or if the combination was "obvious to try" among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. No rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation test.

Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA): a designer with a B.S. or equivalent in electrical/computer engineering, roughly 2–4 years of experience in wireless communications (Bluetooth/IrDA/802.11), embedded systems, mobile-device user interfaces, and device-driver/printing architectures — i.e., the kind of engineer who built the Palm, early Bluetooth phones, and 1990s handheld printing solutions.

2. The record prior art (confirmed citations)

The confirmed partial list from the USPTO record (uspto.report, grant 10162596) includes, in order: 5,490,287 (Itoh); 5,515,480 (Frazier); 5,519,641 (Beers); 5,524,185 (Na); 5,537,107 (Funado); 5,537,517 (Wakabayashi); 5,546,079 (Wagner); 5,564,109 (Snyder); 5,566,278 (Patel); 5,568,595 (Yosefi); 5,580,177 (Gase); 5,589,889 (Kawaoka); 5,596,697 (Foster); 5,604,843 (Shaw); 5,613,123 (Tsang); 5,613,124 (Atkinson); 5,619,257 (Reele); 5,619,649 (Kovnat); 5,625,757 (Kageyama); 5,629,981 (Nerlikar); 5,636,211 (Newlin); 5,644,662 (Vuylsteke); 5,664,243 (Okada); 5,675,717 (Yamamoto); 5,687,332 (Kurahashi); 5,699,495 (Snipp); 5,710,557 (Schuette); 5,717,742 (Hyde-Thomson); 5,724,106 (Autry); 5,737,501 (Tsunekawa); 5,739,928 (Scott); 5,748,859 (Takayanagi); 5,754,655 (Hughes); 5,757,952 (Buytaert); 5,761,480 (Fukada); 5,796,394 (Wicks); 5,802,314 (Tullis); 5,822,230 (Kikinis); 5,826,244 (Huberman); 5,831,664 (Wharton); 5,832,191 (Thorne); 5,838,320 (Matthews III); 5,838,926 (Yamagishi); 5,845,078 (Tezuka); 5,852,721 (Dillon); 5,859,970 (Pleso); 5,862,321 (Lamming) — truncated there.

Three observations about this record:

1. The list is a dense cluster of 1996–1999 wireless-communication, mobile-computing, printing/driver, and document-distribution patents. That clustering is itself evidence that the examiner (and the family's long prosecution) treated the claimed subject matter as built from known, interchangeable components.
2. The patent's own specification describes the "known problems" the combination solves — burdensome pre-installation of device-specific drivers, mobile devices' small displays, cost/reliability/security drawbacks of network printing, and the desirability of local communication between the information apparatus and the output device (spec. sections "Conventionally, an output device (e.g., a printer) is connected…," "network printing may partially solve…," "another drawback of network printing is…"). These are the classic motivations a PHOSITA would have had to combine wireless proximity communication with on-demand component download.
3. The specification itself lists voice-initiated output as a known initiation means ("The output may be initiated by various means, such as by using a soft key, push button, keyboard, keypad, mouse, stylus, software GUI, command or voice activated command, etc.") — a contemporaneous acknowledgment that voice activation was a known input modality for output processes.

3. Claim element analysis (independent claims 1, 8, 14)

The three independent claims are apparatus (1, 14) and medium (8) variants of the same concept. Synthesizing them:

The distinctive, claim-defining combination is: short-range/proximity wireless link to a local output device → button/control indication → send → receive a data/component back (a handshake/synchronization) → then voice command → audio/sound data transmitted to the same device. The invention is essentially "a wireless remote/controller for an output device that (a) performs a two-way setup exchange with the device and (b) also accepts voice commands and streams the corresponding audio to the device."

4. Obviousness combinations and motivation to combine

Combination A — Wireless pervasive output (discovery + on-demand component download) + voice-activated command

References:

• Primary (pervasive output / two-way sync): the wireless printing and document-distribution art cited on the face of the patent — e.g., Lamming, 5,862,321 (Xerox; portable access to and distribution of electronic documents; moderate confidence in content from training data — it is the kind of Xerox proximate-printing/document-distribution reference that maps to discovery of a nearby output device), Kikinis, 5,822,230 (mobile/wireless computing; moderate confidence — Kikinis's Elonex portfolio covers portable computing with wireless links), and the other printing/driver references in the 5.5–5.8 million range (e.g., 5,748,859 Takayanagi; 5,832,191 Thorne; 5,838,320 Matthews III — content not verified).
• Secondary (voice): voice-recognition/voice-command art known by 2000 — Dragon NaturallySpeaking (1997), IBM ViaVoice (1997), automotive voice dialing, and voice-activated TV/consumer-device remotes. High confidence in the state of the art; the specific cited patent in this record is not identifiable from the partial list.

Element mapping (claim 1):

• Portable device with interface (buttons) + microphone + wireless circuitry: taught by any late-1990s handheld (Palm-class device, smart phone, wireless remote) with a button interface; adding a microphone was conventional.
• Proximity wireless connection to output device: taught by the pervasive-output references (Bluetooth/IrDA local links) and by Bluetooth 1.0 (July 1999), which is built around 10-meter piconets and device discovery (high confidence).
• Indication → send info → receive data/component in response: taught by the driver-on-demand/pervasive-output art — the very concept the '596 specification describes as "synchronization," and which the prior art (including the cited printing patents and Microsoft "Point and Print," 1996) already applied to networked printers; applying the same download-on-demand to a local wireless link was the natural extension the specification itself identifies as the problem to be solved.
• Voice command via microphone → transmit audio to the output device: taught by voice-command references (voice-controlled phones/remotes) plus the audio-output-device art (TV/speaker/projector control).

Motivation: The specification's own problem statement supplies the motivation. A PHOSITA designing a mobile device that outputs to nearby printers/displays in 1999–2000 knew (i) users disliked manual driver installation, (ii) local wireless exchange was more secure/reliable than network printing, and (iii) voice was an established hands-free input modality for phones and consumer electronics. Combining a wireless on-demand component-download scheme with a microphone and voice recognition is the predictable use of known elements to solve the known problem of cumbersome mobile output — squarely within KSR's "predictable results" and "design need" rationales.

Combination B — Short-range wireless (Bluetooth/802.11) + Point-and-Print-style driver/component download + voice control

References:

• Bluetooth 1.0 Specification (July 1999) — discovery, pairing, 10 m piconets (high confidence); IEEE 802.11 (1997/1999) (high confidence).
• Microsoft Point-and-Print / network printer-driver download (1996) and the printer-driver art in the cited list (high confidence in the concept; individual cited patents' contents not verified).
• Voice-command art as in Combination A.

Element mapping (claim 8, the medium claim with explicit discovery/connection steps): the instructions to (1) wirelessly detect an output device based on physical proximity, (2) connect, (3) receive a user indication, (4) receive information from the device in response, and (5) accept a voice command — map onto Bluetooth device discovery (steps 1–2), a user selecting a device (step 3), the device returning identity/attribute/UI/status data (step 4), and a voice-recognition module (step 5). Each step was individually old; the claim is a software recitation of the same combination.

Motivation: Bluetooth's own design goals were "cable replacement" for phones, headsets, and peripherals — including printing and AV control. A PHOSITA building a Bluetooth phone/remote with voice dialing (already known) would naturally extend voice control to drive a connected TV, projector, speaker, or printer, and would reuse the network printer's known driver-download mechanism over the local link to avoid driver installation. The result (a voice-enabled wireless remote that handshakes with the output device before/while controlling it) is the predictable integration of three mature technologies.

Combination C — Voice-enabled wireless remote control + output device (TV/audio/projector) with bidirectional data exchange

References:

• Wireless/IR/RF TV remote controls with microphones and voice recognition (1990s voice-remote products) (moderate-high confidence in state of the art; specific patents not confirmed).
• The "controller connectable to a television" and audio-output-device art reflected in the cited list and in the family's own later publications.
• On-demand component download art as above.

Element mapping (claim 14, circuitry claim): circuitry that detects a nearby output device, connects, sends first information, receives second information in response, and — after a voice command — transmits audio/sound data. This maps onto a Bluetooth/802.11 radio plus a voice-command path in a remote/phone. The "receive second information in response" element is the only non-rote part; it is taught by the device-attribute/status exchange that was standard in discovery protocols (Bluetooth SDP, UPnP, Salutation, Jini — the last three are named in the '596 specification itself as known protocols).

Motivation: the market pressure to replace IR remotes with RF/BT remotes (no line-of-sight), and the consumer desire for hands-free TV/audio control; combining a back-channel for device data with voice control was an obvious enhancement to any "smart" remote.

5. Graham-factor assessment

• Scope and content of prior art: Extensive. By Nov. 2000 the PHOSITA had: Bluetooth/IrDA/802.11 short-range links; handheld devices with microphones and voice recognition; wireless printing from handhelds (demonstrated by Ericsson/IBM and others in 1999–2000); driver-download-on-demand (Point and Print); and voice-controlled consumer devices. The examiner's cited-reference list (1996–1999 cluster) corroborates that all building blocks predate the invention.
• Differences: The claims add a specific ordering (proximity connection → indication → send → receive component back → voice command → transmit audio). The genuinely limiting differences are (i) the two-way "receive data/component in response to sending information" handshake with a local output device, and (ii) voice commands tied to driving that specific connected device with audio streamed to it.
• Level of skill: moderate; the combination would have been within the ordinary capability of a wireless-systems engineer in 2000.
• Secondary considerations: No evidence in this record of long-felt need, industry skepticism, or unexpected results. The commercial success of voice assistants/smart speakers is post-priority-date evidence that does not retroactively prove non-obviousness of a 2000 concept. Litigation activity (E.D. Tex. cases against Sony and LG) is not evidence of non-obviousness; it merely reflects enforcement.

6. Weaknesses in the obviousness case (counterarguments)

1. The handshake/synchronization element. The strongest non-rote limitation is "wirelessly receiving data or a component from the output device in response to having sent the information" — i.e., the output device itself supplies a driver/component/attribute set after the portable device initiates contact. A challenger needs a reference that teaches this local, two-way, device-sourced download (not merely a network print server or one-way IR printing). If the cited Lamming/Kikinis/printing references do not, in fact, disclose a device-sourced component download over a short-range link, this element may survive.
2. Voice command → audio transmitted to the output device. The claims require the voice command to result in audio/sound data being sent to the connected output device (or, in claim 8, the voice command controlling/managing/driving the connected device). Voice-command references that merely recognize speech on the device for local functions do not meet this. The combination requires a reference showing voice-driven control of a remote display/audio device — the voice-remote art is the best fit, but its content must be proven.
3. Claim 1's ordering ("subsequent to establishing…the portable electronic device is operable for receiving an indication…receiving data or component…[and is] configured to receive voice activated commands") may be read as a claim to a device capable of both modes (setup exchange and voice control), which broadens the claim and makes it more vulnerable — but a narrow reading (voice command must follow the component exchange) is harder to meet with a single reference and requires a solid combination.

7. Conclusions

• The most plausible § 103 case is Combination A/B: short-range wireless proximity connection (Bluetooth/IrDA/802.11, all pre-2000) + on-demand download of device data/components (Point-and-Print / pervasive-printing art, including the cited 1996–1999 printing and document-distribution patents such as Lamming 5,862,321 and Kikinis 5,822,230) + voice-activated command via a microphone (voice-dialing/voice-remote art). The motivation is the known problem of cumbersome mobile output and the known convenience of hands-free control; the result is a predictable integration of mature components under KSR.
• Claims 8 and 14 (medium and circuitry) are more vulnerable than claim 1 because they are drafted to the same idea at lower structural specificity, and claim 14's "detect based on physical distance" maps almost verbatim onto Bluetooth discovery.
• The dependent claims (2–7, 9–13, 15–20) add conventional limitations (Bluetooth/IEEE 802.11 chipsets, smart-phone/digital-pad form factors, TV/projector/audio output devices, executable software, status/UI attribute data) that are individually well-known and would fall with the independent claims or add little non-obvious weight.

Confidence caveats, repeated for emphasis: I verified the existence of the cited references from the uspto.report record, but not their full text; content descriptions for Lamming 5,862,321 and Kikinis 5,822,230 are at moderate confidence from training data, and I could not confirm the content of the other cited patents (Takayanagi, Thorne, Matthews III, Yamagishi, Tezuka, Dillon, Pleso, etc.). A complete element-by-element prima facie case requires reading each reference. The pending LG case (2:25-cv-00960, E.D. Tex.), which asserts claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–13 against voice-enabled TV remotes, is the venue where these exact combinations are likely to be tested; the docket should be checked for any § 103 defenses raised.