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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-24, and 29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [60], or Page 32 line 22 of the originally filed Specification, refers to “framerate” (the relevant portion reproduced below):
In this scenario, the database may be polled to obtain the recommended attribute information and the recommended attribute information can be used to automatically enable/disable certain features and/or settings, such as CEC, ARC, Internet over HDMI, framerate, etc., or to otherwise notify the user that manual enabling/disabling of certain features and/or settings would be desirable.
Paragraph 60 describes detecting a determined bandwidth (or supported frame rate) of a source device to determine the attributes that would be needed to an appliance (sink device) to provide the best user experience when the appliance is connected thru an HDMI cable.
The Examiner believes that this reference to “framerate” should be amended to “refresh rate” based on the following well-known difference between the two terms (supported by NPL documentation provided herewith), applied to the manner in which the claimed invention is being implemented:
Frame rate, measured in frames per second (FPS), refers to how many individual images (frames) your GPU (graphics processing unit) (or similar video producing source) produces every second.
Refresh rate, measured in Hertz (Hz), is how many times per second a sink device (television, monitor, etc.) updates the image on the screen.
Therefore, upon learning of a supported “frame rate” of a source device, a recommended state for a feature of one of the ports of the sink device can be made and said recommendation can automatically be enabled/disabled. However, the “framerate”, as mentioned in the Specification, is not a feature of the sink device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the source appliance" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arling U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0174436 in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,085,058, in further view of Quere et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0184284.
Per Claim 1, Arling discloses: a method for optimizing utilization of a sink appliance (TV 106) having a plurality of ports (Paragraph 25, Figure 1; plurality of HDMI ports 112), comprising: using a first data indicative of a make and type of a source appliance to determine a capability of the source appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56; appliance type, brand and model number).
Arling uses the appliance type, brand, and model number to determine the specific device(s)/appliance(s) present within the system, and a matching command code set and capability profile for said particular device/appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56). Arling does not specifically teach using the device capability profile/information for matching each source device to specific ports of the television.
However, Lee, in a common field of endeavor (interconnecting numerous electronic devices via HDMI connections), teaches a source device (1010) determining a capability of a sink device (Col. 9 lines 27-46, Col. 10 lines 6-19, Figures 7 and 8; Source device can transmit the EDID information read request to the sink device 1020 through the DDC S7030/S8030. The Sink device responds with its EDID information which allows the source device to determine the capabilities of the sink device. Col. 5 lines 51-55 discloses that the EDID information comprises the available functions of a sink device.). Lee further teaches determining if the capabilities of the source device and a first port of the sink device match, and also if the matching capabilities/ports are currently connected (Col. 10 lines 20-47). Lee further teaches that upon determining that a capability match is present/possible between a source device and a sink port, causing an instruction to be provided to a user to inform the user that the source appliance should be connected to the matching port of the sink appliance (Col. 10 lines 43-47; Col. 12 lines 4-21, Figure 11).
- It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching of matching the capabilities of a source device and a corresponding sink device port within the universal control engine (UCE) of Arling for the purpose of maximizing the capabilities of each of the source and sink devices. This would have been obvious since it has been held that applying a known technique (source/sink capability port matching and connection) to a known device (UCE, either standalone or integrated within a sink device such as the television of Lee or Arling) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2141, section III(D).
Arling teaches utilizing the type, manufacture, model number, etc. of an appliance to determine a “capability profile” (Paragraph 28). Arling does not specifically teach that the capability profile includes a frame rate supported by the source device.
However, Quere teaches using a video encoding frame rate of a source device and a list of supported display refresh rates of a display device (obtained by reading data of the Extended Display Identification Data, EDID, Paragraph 43) to chose an encoding frame rate for the video display sink device and configuring said device with a display mode configuration command including the selected supported refresh rate (Paragraphs 43 and 47, Figure 8; The feature is represented by the refresh rate, and the enabling/disabling is represented by the selection of the specific refresh rate to be implemented at the specific HDMI port of the sink device.).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Quere’s source/sink device connection adjustability within the television systems of Arling/Lee because it helps reduce latency/lag/delay/jitter with a video signal stemming from a mismatch of source/sink device/port capabilities (Quere; Paragraphs 33, 36).
Per Claim 2, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of ports each comprise a High-Definition Multimedia Interface port (Paragraph 25, Figure 1; plurality of HDMI ports 112).
Per Claim 203, Arling discloses that the UCE 100 can be incorporated within an internet-capable TV, which would therefore put it within the sink device (Paragraph 31). Arling does not specifically disclose the data read from the signal comprising Extended Display Identification Data.
However, Lee discloses capability data being transmitted as Extended Display Identification Data (Col. 5 lines 51-55, Col. 9 lines 39-46, and Col. 10 lines 6-19; EDID information).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the capability data of Arling as EDID, as taught by Lee, because EDID and CEC are well-known in the art to be used interchangeably, as taught by Lee (Col. 9 lines 39-46) and Arling (U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0337879; Paragraphs 16 and 23).
Per Claim 4, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first data is read from Consumer Electronics Control related data received by the sink appliance from the source appliance (Paragraphs 25, 26, 28, 40, 43, and 48 discuss the CEC limitation. Paragraph 31 discusses that the UCE 100 that performs the capability discovery can be incorporated within an internet-capable TV, which would therefore put it within the sink device.).
Per Claim 6, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first data is provided by a controlling device application configured to control functional operations of the source appliance (Paragraph 28; UCE device 100).
Per Claim 107, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the sink appliance comprises a television (TV 106).
Per Claim 8, Arling discloses HDMI CEC (Paragraphs 7, 8, 25) but does not specifically teach ARC capability.
However, Lee teaches support for HDMI CEC and ARC capability (Col. 5 lines 24-34, Col. 9 lines 57-67).
- It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching of HDMI port ARC functionality within the television device of Arling because the ARC capability was implemented into the HDMI standard since version 1.4.
Per Claim 10, Arling discloses the method as recited in claim 1, comprising providing a remote server with the first data to determine the capability of the source appliance (Paragraph 28, cloud based server 206; Paragraph 42, database server 206).
Per Claim 11, Arling discloses Lee discloses an appliance (TV 106; Paragraph 31 discusses that the UCE 100 that performs the capability discovery can be incorporated within an internet-capable TV, which would therefore make the UCE/TV integration a sink device.), comprising:36 ACTIVE 46709077v1a processing device (processor 500); a plurality of ports in communication with the processing device (Paragraph 25 and Figure 1 discloses that TV 106 comprises a plurality of HDMI ports in order to connect to source appliances such as devices 108, 110, and 120. A processor 500 of a UCE 100 integrated within TV 106 would be in communication with said HDMI ports in order to perform the communications discussed in Paragraph 28.); and a memory having instructions executable by the processing device (Paragraphs 32 and 33; memory 502), the instructions, when executed by the processing device, causing the appliance to: 5use first data indicative of a make and type of a source appliance to determine a capability of the source appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56; appliance type, brand and model number).
Arling uses the appliance type, brand, and model number to determine the specific device(s)/appliance(s) present within the system, and a matching command code set and capability profile for said particular device/appliance (Paragraphs 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56). Arling does not specifically teach using the device capability profile/information for matching each source device to specific ports of the television.
However, Lee, in a common field of endeavor (interconnecting numerous electronic devices via HDMI connections), teaches a source device (1010) determining a capability of a sink device (Col. 9 lines 27-46, Col. 10 lines 6-19, Figures 7 and 8; Source device can transmit the EDID information read request to the sink device 1020 through the DDC S7030/S8030. The Sink device responds with its EDID information which allows the source device to determine the capabilities of the sink device. Col. 5 lines 51-55 discloses that the EDID information comprises the available functions of a sink device.). Lee further teaches determining if the capabilities of the source device and a first port of the sink device match and, also if the matching capabilities/ports are currently connected (Col. 10 lines 20-47). Lee further teaches that upon determining that a capability match is present/possible between a source device and a sink port, causing an instruction to be provided to a user to inform the user that the source appliance should be connected to the matching port of the sink appliance (Col. 10 lines 43-47; Col. 12 lines 4-21, Figure 11).
- It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching of matching the capabilities of a source device and a corresponding sink device port within the universal control engine (UCE) of Arling for the purpose of maximizing the capabilities of each of the source and sink devices. This would have been obvious since it has been held that applying a known technique (source/sink capability port matching and connection) to a known device (UCE, either standalone or integrated within a sink device such as the television of Lee or Arling) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2141, section III(D).
Arling teaches utilizing the type, manufacture, model number, etc. of an appliance to determine a “capability profile” (Paragraph 28). Arling does not specifically teach that the capability profile includes a frame rate supported by the source device.
However, Quere teaches using a video encoding frame rate of a source device and a list of supported display refresh rates of a display device (obtained by reading data of the Extended Display Identification Data, EDID, Paragraph 43) to chose an encoding frame rate for the video display sink device and configuring said device with a display mode configuration command including the selected supported refresh rate (Paragraphs 43 and 47, Figure 8; The feature is represented by the refresh rate, and the enabling/disabling is represented by the selection of the specific refresh rate to be implemented at the specific HDMI port of the sink device.).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Quere’s source/sink device connection adjustability within the television systems of Arling/Lee because it helps reduce latency/lag/delay/jitter with a video signal stemming from a mismatch of source/sink device/port capabilities (Quere; Paragraphs 33, 36).
Per Claims 12-14, 16-18, and 20, please refer to the above rejection of Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, and 8, respectively, as the limitations of said claims are substantially similar and have been previously discussed in detail.
* * * * * *
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arling U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0174436 in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,085,058, in further view of Quere et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0184284, in further view of Arling et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0337879 (hereafter referred to as Arling_2).
Per Claims 5 and 15 Arling does not specifically disclose that the EDID data comprises video resolution capabilities. Lee discloses EDID data including video resolution capabilities of a sink device (Col. 9 lines 57-67).
However, Arling_2, similarly to Arling, teaches a device 100 querying both sink (108, 110) and source (106) devices for CEC and/or EDID information to identify said devices (Paragraph 16). Arling_2 further teaches said EDID information including video formats and resolutions supported by said devices (Paragraph 24).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Arling_2’s teaching of obtaining a video resolution capability of a source device within the source/sink system of Arling/Lee/Quere because video resolution is a commonly known attribute of source video devices, such as the DVD player 108 and STB/DVR 110 source devices of Arling.
* * * * * *
Claims 21-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quere et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0184284 in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,085,058.
Per Claim 21, Quere discloses a method for optimizing utilization of a sink appliance (digital TV 108) having at least one port (Paragraph 32; “Thin client game console 106 connects to the digital TV 108 for audio/video rendering via an audio/video link, such as High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI)”. HDMI represents an HDMI port), comprising: using a frame rate supported by the source to obtain a recommended state for a feature of the port of the sink appliance and using the recommended state for the feature of the port of the sink appliance to automatically enable or disable the feature of the port of the sink appliance (Paragraphs 43 and 47, Figure 8; The feature is represented by the refresh rate, and the enabling/disabling is represented by the selection of the specific refresh rate to be implemented at the specific HDMI port of the sink device.).
Quere teaches digital television 108 comprises an HDMI port/interface (Paragraph 32), but does not specifically teach a plurality of HDMI ports.
However, Lee similarly teaches a sink device television (Col. 11 lines 61-67) and a sink capability discovery process (Col. 9 lines 27-46, Col. 10 lines 6-19, Figures 7 and 8; Source device can transmit the EDID information read request to the sink device 1020 through the DDC S7030/S8030. The Sink device responds with its EDID information which allows the source device to determine the capabilities of the sink device. Col. 5 lines 51-55 discloses that the EDID information comprises the available functions of a sink device. Col. 10 lines 20-47) and further teaches that the sink device comprises a plurality of HDMI ports (Column 7 lines 7-22).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the digital television of Quere with multiple HDMI ports as taught by Lee because it is common for televisions to comprise multiple HDMI or similar audio/video input ports in order to connect to numerous types of audio/video source devices.
Per Claims 22 and 23, Quere does not discuss supporting an ARC capability or CEC capability.
However, Lee discloses support for an ARC capability (Col. 5 lines 24-34, Col. 9 lines 57-67) as well as HDMI CEC (Col. 5 lines 24-34, Col. 9 lines 57-67).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’s ARC and HDMI CEC capabilities within the sink device of Quere because these features are supported within HDMI starting with HDMI standard version 1.4.
Per Claim 24, Quere discloses the method as recited in claim 21, wherein the port comprises a High-Definition Multimedia Interface port (Paragraph 32), but does not specifically teach a plurality of HDMI ports.
However, Lee similarly teaches a sink device television (Col. 11 lines 61-67) and a sink capability discovery process (Col. 9 lines 27-46, Col. 10 lines 6-19, Figures 7 and 8; Source device can transmit the EDID information read request to the sink device 1020 through the DDC S7030/S8030. The Sink device responds with its EDID information which allows the source device to determine the capabilities of the sink device. Col. 5 lines 51-55 discloses that the EDID information comprises the available functions of a sink device. Col. 10 lines 20-47) and further teaches that the sink device comprises a plurality of HDMI ports (Column 7 lines 7-22).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the digital television of Quere with multiple HDMI ports as taught by Lee because it is common for televisions to comprise multiple HDMI or similar audio/video input ports in order to connect to numerous types of audio/video source devices. (Paragraph 42, Figure 1).
Per Claim 29, Quere discloses the method as recited in claim 21, wherein the sink appliance comprises a television (Paragraph 32; digital TV 108).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175