Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. First and again, the applicant argues this action should be non-final as the amended claims were not formerly presented. However, as MPEP 706.07(b) states, a final rejection after the filing of an RCE is proper when the amendments are patentably indistinct from and would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record if they had been entered in the application prior to the RCE filing. Which is the case here, where the incorporation of claim 4 into claim 1, and claim 33 into claim 30 would result in meeting the requirements of 706.07(b). The citations and rationales of the amended subject matter have not changed, thus are patentably indistinct from the previously presented claims. As such, the action is final.
Secondly, applicant appears to argue, generally, none of the references cited in the previous action area analogous or pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Applicant provides no specificity to applicant’s arguments other than requesting identification of the field and problem of the invention. Reference to other documents, as done below, are documents within the prosecution history of the instant application, which fully detail the proper combination of pertinent, analogous the cited art. Amendments presented by applicant herein are no different.
Lastly, applicant is again reminded the issue of analogous art of the references, as well as being properly combined, has been repeatedly addressed in the previous office actions of 28 October 2020, 2 February 2021, 8 June 2023, 7 December 023, 21 June 2024, and 10 December 2024. In fact, details of such arguments and explanations can be found extensively in the Examiner’s answer of 21 May 2021 in which the PTAB decision of 20 December 2022 clearly decided the issue of patentability of the claimed invention, as well as the combination of references and rationales used by the Office. In fact, the reconsideration decision of 13 March 2023 extensively discussed definitive reasons as to why the same cited prior art in the instant action – which continues to cover the same claimed subject matter renders the claims unpatentable. While the applicant may not agree with the reasons put forth by the Office and extensively confirmed by the PTAB. Yet again, applicant has failed to provide – with any specificity – the reasons why such art is ‘not analogous’, only providing a blanket statement that has been refuted extensively throughout the prosecution history of record. As such, the arguments will not be repeated here and are in the rejection rationales below, as well as in the previous rejections, examiner’s answer, and board decision(s) listed above. Thus, the rejections stand.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 12-14, 17, 19-20, and 22-29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) in even further view of Xu (Us 2007.0216884) and in even further view of Kitaura (US 2007.0132725).
Regarding claim 1, Trovato disclose:
a digital camera for capturing an image, the digital camera being fixed in position relative to the screen to be movable in unison with the screen and being oriented to capture an image of a scene substantially in front of the screen; an image processor coupled to receive the captured image from the digital camera and configured for applying an algorithm to detect an element in the captured image; a single enclosure housing the flat screen and digital camera (Fig. 1, [0013, 0016-0017, 0031-0035, 0038]; image processor and image detection algorithms; flat screen; camera in single enclosure and fixed relative to screen)
Trovato is not explicit as to, but Gutta disclose
A television set comprising: a flat screen for displaying television channels (see col. 1, ln.66 – col 2, ln 2; col 5, ln. 17-24; col. 4, ln. 65),
the element is a human face or a human hand, and wherein the algorithm comprises a respective face or hand detection algorithm for detecting an existence and a position of the respective human face or hand in the captured image (see col. 2, ln. 48-51; face and hand detection; also see AAPA; see col 10, ln. 18-47; human hand by processor in 52 for gesture algorithm application),
wherein the element is a human face, and the algorithm comprises a face detection algorithm for detecting an existence and a position of the human face in the captured image (see col. 2, ln. 48-51; face and hand detection; also see AAPA).
wherein the image processor comprises firmware or software and a processor to execute the firmware or software (see col. 5, ln. 17-19 processor to execute software; see also Trovato [0013, 0016-0017)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Gutta to Trovato to provide for television channel capabilities of a television set to the display of Trovato to predictably increase system versatility by providing a well know display capability of displaying television channels in a system with automatic hands free display adjustment through object detection (col. 1 In. 54-58).
Trovato and Gutta are not explicit as to, but AAPA disclose:
an antenna for over- the-air radio-frequency communication; a transceiver coupled between the digital camera and the antenna for transmitting the captured image over the air. While the primary reference Trovato as modified by Gutta disclose a digital camera, it does not disclose camera with an over the air (non-wired) communication via a transceiver, for capturing and transmitting such image over the air, however, AAPA at [0111-0112] and Fig. 7 discloses such. Since each individual element are shown in the prior art, albeit in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the digital camera and its components of AAPA for that of Trovato and Gutta. Thus the simple substation of one known element of the other producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Trovato, Gutta, and AAPA are not explicit as to, but Binder discloses the use of an over the air communication via a WLAN ([0033, 0044, 0051]; WLAN transceiver for wireless over the air communication),
wherein the over- the-air radio frequency communication uses a license-free frequency band (see [0191-0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Binder to Trovato, Gutta, and AAPA to provide over the air frequency communications with the wireless transmission means contemplated in AAPA to predictably increase the versatility of the device by reducing the need for wired components, and further adds to the versatility of the wireless communication used because of the types of wireless standards (e.g., IEEE 802.xxx) the Binder reference teaches, allowing the wireless communication between parts a level of consistency so that the parts used within the device can be standard, further reducing the manufacturing costs (e.g., [0017] “allowing interoperability between equipment manufactured between different vendors).
Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder are not explicit as to, but Wilson disclose:
information is displayed on the flat screen in response to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0098]; where camera detects motion of detected element within the image, such that information displayed on screen (e.g., channel information) is changed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Wilson to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder to provide information is displayed on said screen in response to the detection of the element in the captured image with the predictable result of allowing the user remote control over the viewing content of the display device through the detected camera images (see [0097-0098]).
Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson are note explicit as to, but Xu disclose:
a timer associated with a pre- set time period, and wherein said screen is blanked in response to not detecting the element in the captured image during the pre-set time period (see [0048], see also Trovato [0043] for time period).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Xu to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson to provide detection of the absence of an image element for a second time period after detection of an element to predictably conserve power to the device by adding the ability to cut power ([0006]).
Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson and Xu are not explicit as to, but Kitaura disclose:
a power is supplied to a load in response to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0245]; where power supplied to 'load' (device) in response to hand gesture detection in image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Kitaura to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson and Xu to provide a powering on and off of the device in response to a hand signal, with the predictable result of allowing the user an alternative to power on and off the device without the need of having a remote in hand or having to find a lost remote (see [0009], [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. AAPA further disclose:
the digital camera comprises: an optical lens for focusing received light; a photosensitive image sensor array disposed approximately at an image focal point plane of the optical lens for capturing the image and producing an analog form of the captured image; and an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter coupled to the image sensor for generating the captured image (see [0111-0120]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. AAPA further disclose:
image sensor array is based on, or comprises, multiple Charge- - 47 -Coupled Devices (CCD) or Complementary Metal-Oxide- Semiconductor (CMOS) components (see [0111-0120]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Gutta further disclose:
the element is a human hand, and the algorithm comprises a hand gesture algorithm for detecting an existence and a position of a hand gesture in the captured image (see col 10, ln. 18-47; human hand by processor in 52 for gesture algorithm application).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder are not explicit as to, but Wilson disclose:
wherein information is displayed on said screen in response to a position of the detected element in the captured image (see [0098]; where camera detects motion of detected element within the image, such that information displayed on screen (e.g., channel information) is changed).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Gutta further disclose:
responsive to a deviation between the position of the detected element in the captured image and a center of the image (see Fig. 2a; col. 9, ln. 22-46; where detected position of element (user, face, hand) detects deviation 'x' from position of element to center of image 'c')
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder are not explicit as to, but Wilson further disclose:
a television channel is selected to be displayed on the screen in response to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0098]; channel changing in response to gesture detected).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kitaura further disclose:
a switch connected to be actuated in response to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0245], [0008]; main power switch of device operated by hand gestures).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Binder further disclose:
the license-free frequency band is an ISM band (see [0191-0195]).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Binder further disclose:
the ISM band is 5 GHz or 2.4 GHz (see [0191-0195]).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Binder further disclose:
the WLAN is according to, or based on, IEEE 802.lla, IEEE 802.llb, or IEEE 802.11g (see [0191-0195])
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. AAPA further disclose:
comprising an image or video compressor coupled between the digital camera and the WLAN transceiver, for compressing the captured image according to a compression scheme (see [0116])
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. AAPA further disclose:
the compression scheme is a lossy or lossless type (see [0116])
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. AAPA further disclose:
the compression scheme is according to, or based on, JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) and MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) standard (see [0116])
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson are not explicit as to, but Kitaura disclose:
said flat screen is silicon-based (see [0088]; LCD) and said flat screen is LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) or TFF (Thin-Film Transistor) based (see [0088]; LCD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Kitaura to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson to provide an silicon-based LCD for the flat panel display, where it is well known in the art that LCD televisions are common place, such that it is advantageous to increase the versatility of the system to be compatible with an LCD display.
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated herein. Kitaura further disclose:
wherein the flat screen is LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) or TFT Thin-Film Transistor) based (see [0088]).
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson are not explicit as to, but Xu disclose:
operative for displaying High Definition (HD), and wherein said television set further comprises an HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) for receiving and displaying HD video ([0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known teachings of Xu to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson to provide HDMI connections, a well-known connection interface for audio/visual data transfer to minimize the amount of connections and cumbersome cables.
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson are not explicit as to, but Kitaura disclose:
only information displayed on the flat screen is responsive to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0090-0095]; controlling only information on screen responsive to detecting image (hand) by camera 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Kitaura to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson to predictably allow for control of the display device without the need for a remote control ([0009, 0012]).
Claim 6-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA ( Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) Xu and Kitaura and in further view of Liang (US 2010.0211918).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder and Wilson and Xu and Kitaura are not explicit as to, but Liang disclose:
the algorithm comprises a face detection algorithm for detecting an existence and a position of a human face in the captured image (see [0034]; combination of face and hand detection; see also Gutta col. 5,ln. 1-2; col. 10 ,ln. 28-47 where processors 552 can run face and hand algorithms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Laing to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder and Wilson and Xu and Kitaura to provide face and hand detection with the predictable result of reducing user error and giving more accurate detection for device functions.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Liang further disclose:
the detection algorithm of the hand gesture is based on the position of the human face detected in the captured image (see [0034]; combination (ergo, hand/face position/gestures are interrelated for desired output on device)
Claim 8-10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA ( Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) and Xu and Kitaura in further view of Liang (US 2010.0211918) and even further view of (Underkoffler (US 7/598.942).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson and Xu and Kitaura, and Liang are not explicit as to, but Underkoffler disclose:
the hand gesture includes extending a single finger (see Fig. 3; one finger point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Underkoffer to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson, and Xu and Kitaura and Liang, to provide detection of multiple hand gestures based on the number of extended fingers with the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the device and ability to have a plurality of executable commands from the user (see col. 2, ln. 44-47).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 and 5 are incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson and Xu and Kitaura and Liang are not explicit as to, but Underkoffer disclose:
the hand gesture includes extending multiple fingers (see Fig. 3; two finger or peace sign point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Underkoffer to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder, Wilson, and Xu and Kitaura and Liang, to provide detection of multiple hand gestures based on the number of extended fingers with the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the device and ability to have a plurality of executable commands from the user (see col. 2, ln. 44-47).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 and 5 are incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson, and Xu and Kitaura and Liang are not explicit as to, but Underkoffer disclose:
the hand gesture includes extending all figures of one hand (see Fig. 3; five finger or flat extension).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Underkoffer to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson, and Xu and Kitaura and Liang, to provide detection of multiple hand gestures based on the number of extended fingers with the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the device and ability to have a plurality of executable commands from the user (see col. 2, ln. 44-47).
Claims 30-32, 34, 41-43, 46, 48-49, 53-54, 56, and 58 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA ( Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) and in even further view of Kitaura (US 2007.0132725)
Regarding claim 30, Trovato disclose:
a digital camera for capturing an image, the digital camera being fixed in position relative to the screen to be movable in unison with the screen and being oriented to capture an image of a scene substantially in front of the screen; an image processor coupled to receive the captured image from the digital camera and configured for applying an algorithm to detect an element in the captured image; a single enclosure housing the flat screen and digital camera (Fig. 1, [0013, 0016-0017, 0031-0035, 0038]; image processor and image detection algorithms; flat screen; camera in single enclosure and fixed relative to screen)
Trovato is not explicit as to, but Gutta disclose
A television set comprising: a flat screen for displaying television channels (see col. 1, ln.66 – col 2, ln 2; col 5, ln. 17-24; col. 4, ln. 65).
the element is a human face or a human hand, and wherein the algorithm comprises a respective face or hand detection algorithm for detecting an existence and a position of the respective human face or hand in the captured image (see col. 2, ln. 48-51; face and hand detection; also see AAPA; see col 10, ln. 18-47; human hand by processor in 52 for gesture algorithm application)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Gutta to Trovato to provide for television channel capabilities of a television set to the display of Trovato to predictably increase system versatility by providing a well know display capability of displaying television channels in a system with automatic hands free display adjustment through object detection (col. 1 In. 54-58).
Trovato and Gutta are not explicit as to, but AAPA disclose:
an antenna for over- the-air radio-frequency communication; a transceiver coupled between the digital camera and the antenna for transmitting the captured image over the air and an image or video compressor coupled between the digital camera and the WLAN transceiver, for compressing the captured image according to a compression scheme. While the primary reference Trovato as modified by Gutta disclose a digital camera, it does not disclose camera with an over the air (non-wired) communication via a transceiver, for capturing and transmitting such image over the air and comprising an image or video compressor coupled between the digital camera and the WLAN transceiver, for compressing the captured image according to a compression scheme, however, AAPA at [0111-0112, 0116] and Fig. 7 discloses such. Since each individual element are shown in the prior art, albeit in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the digital camera and its components of AAPA for that of Trovato and Gutta. Thus the simple substation of one known element of the other producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Trovato, Gutta, and AAPA are not explicit as to, but Binder discloses the use of an over the air communication via a WPAN ([0033, 0044, 0051 0191]; WPAN transceiver for wireless over the air communication) wherein the WPAN is according to, or based on, Bluetooth, IEEE 802.15, or Ultra-Wide-Band (UWB) (see [0191-0195])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Binder to Trovato, Gutta, and AAPA to provide over the air frequency communications with the wireless transmission means contemplated in AAPA to predictably increase the versatility of the device by reducing the need for wired components, and further adds to the versatility of the wireless communication used because of the types of wireless standards (e.g., IEEE 802.xxx) the Binder reference teaches, allowing the wireless communication between parts a level of consistency so that the parts used within the device can be standard, further reducing the manufacturing costs (e.g., [0017] “allowing interoperability between equipment manufactured between different vendors).
Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder are not explicit as to, but Wilson disclose:
information is displayed on the flat screen in response to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0098]; where camera detects motion of detected element within the image, such that information displayed on screen (e.g., channel information) is changed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Wilson to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA and Binder to provide information is displayed on said screen in response to the detection of the element in the captured image with the predictable result of allowing the user remote control over the viewing content of the display device through the detected camera images (see [0097-0098]).
Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson are not explicit as to, but Kitaura disclose:
a power is supplied to a load in response to the detection of the element in the captured image (see [0245]; where power supplied to 'load' (device) in response to hand gesture detection in image) and a flat screen is silicon-based (see [0088]; LCD) and said flat screen is LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) or TFF (Thin-Film Transistor) based (see [0088]; LCD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Kitaura to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, Wilson to provide a powering on and off of the device in response to a hand signal, with the predictable result of allowing the user an alternative to power on and off the device without the need of having a remote in hand or having to find a lost remote (see [0009], [0012]) on a silicon-based LCD for the flat panel display, where it is well known in the art that LCD televisions are common place, such that it is advantageous to increase the versatility of the system to be compatible with an LCD display.
Regarding claims 31-32, 34, 41-43, 46, 48-49, 53-54, 56, and 58 claims 31-32, 34, 41-43, 46, 48-49, 53-54, 56, and 58 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3, 5, 12-14, 17, 19-20, 24-25, 27, and 29 respectively.
Regarding claim 44, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Gutta further disclose:
the image processor comprises firmware or software and a processor to execute the firmware or software (see col. 5, ln. 17-19 processor to execute software; see also Trovato [0013, 0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 47, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Binder further disclose:
the over- the-air radio frequency communication uses a license-free frequency band (see [0191-0195]).
Claim 35-36 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA ( Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) Kitaura and in further view of Liang (US 2010.0211918).
Regarding claim 35-36, claims 35-36 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 6-7.
Claim 37-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA ( Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) and Kitaura in further view of Liang (US 2010.0211918) and even further view of (Underkoffler (US 7/598.942).
Regarding claims 37-39, claims 37-39 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8-10.
Claims 40 and 57 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trovato (US 2006.071135) in view of Gutta (US 6/931.596) in view of AAPA ( Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) in even further view of Binder (US 2007.0173202) and in even further view of Wilson (US 2004.0189720) and Kitaura in even further view of Xu (Us 2007.0216884).
Regarding claim 40, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson and Kitaura are note explicit as to, but Xu disclose:
a timer associated with a pre- set time period, and wherein said screen is blanked in response to not detecting the element in the captured image during the pre-set time period ([0048], see also Trovato [0043] for time period).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known techniques of Xu to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson and Kitaura to provide detection of the absence of an image element for a second time period after detection of an element to predictably conserve power to the device by adding the ability to cut power ([0006]).
Regarding claim 57, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson and Kitaura are not explicit as to, but Xu disclose:
operative for displaying High Definition (HD), and wherein said television set further comprises an HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) for receiving and displaying HD video ([0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the known teachings of Xu to Trovato, Gutta, AAPA, Binder, and Wilson and Kitaura to provide HDMI connections, a well-known connection interface for audio/visual data transfer to minimize the amount of connections and cumbersome cables.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday - Friday // 0530-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571.272.7764. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/kenneth bukowski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621