DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/241,504 filed on 09/01/2023.
In response to the restriction requirement, the Applicant has elected Group I, Claims 1-14, without traverse, for prosecution. Claims 15-20 have been cancelled, Claims 21-26 are newly added. Claims 1-14 and 21-26 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 09/01/2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim(s) is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 21 recites “computer-readable storage medium;” However, there is no further discussion in the specification as to what type of computer-readable storage medium is claimed. Broadly interpreted, a “computer-readable storage medium” can be any means that include propagate and transmission signals, which are non-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 The specification does not explicitly define as to what type of “computer-readable storage medium” is claimed. At most, in paragraph [0060], the specification provides some examples regarding different kinds of “computer-readable storage memory”; the specification does not explicitly exclude transitory/propagated medium from the claimed computer-readable storage medium. Broadly interpreted, a “computer-readable storage medium” can be any means that include propagate and transmission signals, which are non-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This issue is raised as the disclosure of the invention recites non-limiting examples of media. Yet, the disclosure does not expressly exclude a broad, albeit reasonable interpretation of one or more computer-readable storage media as comprising signals. The broadest and reasonable interpretation of one or more computer-readable storage media comprises signals. It has been noted that the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable storage medium” to a person of ordinary skill in the art was broad enough to encompass both non-transitory and transitory media. (See Ex Parte Mewherter (Appeal 2012-007692) (Precedential)).
Transitory, propagating signals such as carrier waves are not within any of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Therefore, a claim directed to computer instructions embodied in a signal is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As a result, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite either “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, or “a computer-readable storage memory” to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim(s) 22-26; Claims 22-26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under the same rational as independent claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun et al. (US 2019/0146744; Hereinafter “Chun”).
Regarding claim 1, Chun teaches a mobile device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one module executable by the at least one processor to:
monitor data reception of data received from a network source and transmitted from the mobile device to an external display device (Chun: Para. [0146], The display state control unit 823 may detect, based on the APL variation, whether frames of the second image are identical to each other and may determine whether the terminal transmitting the second image operates depending on the detecting result. The operation of the terminal 300 may refer to that the screen displayed on the display unit of the terminal 300 by the manipulation of the user is changed as time elapses. Para. [0148], The display state control unit 823 may control the image blender 810 or the scaler 830 such that the display state of the second image is changed, when each of the APL variations continuously calculated during the predetermined time or a predetermined count is less than the reference variation (or equal to or less than the reference variation).);
detect that a trigger condition occurs in relation to the data reception (Chun: Para. [0182], the terminal 300 may be locked when the user does not manipulate the terminal 300 for a predetermined time. In this case, the locking screen may be displayed on the display unit of the terminal 300. When the predetermined time is shorter than the above-described threshold time, before the controller 170 changes the display state of the mirroring image to the non-display state, the screen of the terminal 300 may be changed to the locking screen. Para. [0014], [trigger condition may include predetermined time elapsed] Para. [0146], The operation of the terminal 300 may refer to that the screen displayed on the display unit of the terminal 300 by the manipulation of the user is changed as time elapses. Para. [0148]); and
cause, based at least in part on the trigger condition, the mobile device to transition to a locked state (Chun: Para. [0182], the terminal 300 may be locked when the user does not manipulate the terminal 300 for a predetermined time. In this case, the locking screen may be displayed on the display unit of the terminal 300. When the predetermined time is shorter than the above-described threshold time, before the controller 170 changes the display state of the mirroring image to the non-display state, the screen of the terminal 300 may be changed to the locking screen.).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 14, 22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (US 2019/0146744; Hereinafter “Chun”) in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0160812; Hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 2, Chun teaches the mobile device of claim 1. Chun does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that the mobile device is connected to the external display device via at least one of a wired connection or a wireless connection.
In an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that the mobile device is connected to the external display device via at least one of a wired connection or a wireless connection. (Park: Para. [0185]-[0186], Para. [0188], The mobile terminal 100 connected to the HMD 200 in a wired/wireless manner for data transception serves as a controller (a control device or a control means) for controlling the HMD 200. Para. [0232], the mobile terminal 100 may be connected to the HMD 200 in a wired manner through the interface units 160, 260, or may be connected to the HMD 200 in wireless manner through the wired communication unit 110 (Zigbee, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Park with the system and method of Chun to include wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that the mobile device is connected to the external display device via at least one of a wired connection or a wireless connection because this functionality provides the advantage of enhanced user convenience and privacy protection of the user when content is converted into a locked state (Park: Para. [0296])
Regarding claim 5, Chun teaches the mobile device of claim 1. Chun does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to monitor the data reception based at least in part on whether the data reception occurs via wired connectivity or wireless connectivity to the network source.
In an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to monitor the data reception based at least in part on whether the data reception occurs via wired connectivity or wireless connectivity to the network source (Park: Para. [0023], and changing the second content to a locked state when the detached state satisfies a second condition regardless of whether the head mounted display is re-worn within the threshold amount of time. [detached state may include disconnection from a wired connectivity] Para. [0232], the mobile terminal 100 may be connected to the HMD 200 in a wired manner through the interface units 160, 260, or may be connected to the HMD 200 in wireless manner through the wired communication unit 110 (Zigbee, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Park with the system and method of Chun to include wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to monitor the data reception based at least in part on whether the data reception occurs via wired connectivity or wireless connectivity to the network source because this functionality provides the advantage of enhanced user convenience and privacy protection of the user when content is converted into a locked state (Park: Para. [0296])
Regarding claim 6, Chun teaches the mobile device of claim 1. Chun does not explicitly teach wherein the trigger condition comprises an indication that the data reception falls below a threshold amount of data received from the network source.
In an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the trigger condition comprises an indication that the data reception falls below a threshold amount of data received from the network source (Park: Para. [0029], wherein the controller is further capable of changing the second content to a locked state when a threshold length of time elapses after the head mounted display is disconnected while the second content is displayed. [disconnection of a head mounted display while content is displayed will reduce data reception to zero, thereby triggering a locked state]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Park with the system and method of Chun to include wherein the trigger condition comprises an indication that the data reception falls below a threshold amount of data received from the network source because this functionality provides the advantage of enhanced user convenience and privacy protection of the user when content is converted into a locked state (Park: Para. [0296])
Regarding claim 7, Chun, in combination with Park, teaches the mobile device of claim 6, wherein the trigger condition further comprises an indication that the data reception falls below the threshold amount of data received from the network source for a threshold time duration (Park: Para. [0029], wherein the controller is further capable of changing the second content to a locked state when a threshold length of time elapses after the head mounted display is disconnected while the second content is displayed.).
Regarding claim 8, Chun, in combination with Park, teaches the mobile device of claim 7, wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to enable at least one of the threshold amount of data or the threshold time duration to be user configurable (Park: Para. [0227], In this case, the controller 180 of the mobile terminal 100 (or the controller 280 of the HMD 200) may differently set the reference time for converting the second content into a locked state, based on a played degree of the second content or based on an output time. [setting the reference time for converting to a locked state performed via mobile device or HMD]).
Regarding claim 10, Chun teaches the mobile device of claim 1. Chun does not explicitly teach wherein the trigger condition comprises an indication that data transmission from the mobile device to the network source falls below a threshold amount of data transmitted from the mobile device to the network source for a threshold time duration.
In an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the trigger condition comprises an indication that data transmission from the mobile device to the network source falls below a threshold amount of data transmitted from the mobile device to the network source for a threshold time duration (Park: Para. [0029], wherein the controller is further capable of changing the second content to a locked state when a threshold length of time elapses after the head mounted display is disconnected while the second content is displayed. [disconnection of a head mounted display while content is displayed will reduce data reception to zero, thereby triggering a locked state]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Park with the system and method of Chun to include wherein the trigger condition comprises an indication that data transmission from the mobile device to the network source falls below a threshold amount of data transmitted from the mobile device to the network source for a threshold time duration because this functionality provides the advantage of enhanced user convenience and privacy protection of the user when content is converted into a locked state (Park: Para. [0296]).
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 10.
Regarding claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding claims 25-26, Claims 25-26 str rejected under the same rationale as claims 5-6, respectively.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 23-24 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chun et al. (US 2019/0146744; Hereinafter “Chun”) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2020/0333995; Hereinafter “Jeong”).
Regarding claim 3, Chun teaches the mobile device of claim 1. Chun does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that the mobile device is not utilized as an input device for providing input to the data transmitted from the mobile device to the external display device.
In an analogous art, Jeong teaches wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that the mobile device is not utilized as an input device for providing input to the data transmitted from the mobile device to the external display device (Jeong: Fig. 7, Para. [0135], According to an embodiment, and as shown in FIG. 7, the display device 100 may receive, from the user terminal device 200, information indicating that a title of the video content that is being output via the user terminal device 200 is “hiking,” and information identifying that a current playback point of the video content is 59 minutes. Then, the display device 100 may receive, from the external server 700 from which the user terminal device 200 also receives the video content, a portion of the video content that corresponds to the current playback point of the video content that is being output via the user terminal device 200, based on the received information. According to an embodiment, the display device 100 may receive, from the external server 700, video content titled “hiking” after the playback point of 59 minutes. Therefore, the display device 100 may receive and display the video content that corresponds to the current playback point of the video content that is received from the external server 700 and is being output via the user terminal device 200. [after 00:59, content being played via display is received from external server and not mobile terminal])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jeong with the system and method of Chun to include wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that the mobile device is not utilized as an input device for providing input to the data transmitted from the mobile device to the external display device because this functionality provides for improved and more efficient mirroring techniques for displaying content (Jeong: Para. [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Chun, in combination with Jeong, teaches the mobile device of claim 3, wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to determine that at least one input device external to the mobile device is used as an input device for providing input to the data transmitted from the mobile device to the external display device (Jeong: Para. [0135], Therefore, the display device 100 may receive and display the video content that corresponds to the current playback point of the video content that is received from the external server 700 and is being output via the user terminal device 200).
Regarding claims 23-24, Claims 23-24 str rejected under the same rationale as claims 3-4, respectively.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (US 2019/0146744; Hereinafter “Chun”) in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0160812; Hereinafter “Park”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0155031; Hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, Chun, in combination with Park, teaches the mobile device of claim 7, wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to enable at least one of the threshold amount of data or the threshold time duration. Chun, in combination with Park, does not explicitly teach to be configured based on a location of the mobile device.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the at least one module is executable by the at least one processor to enable at least one of the threshold amount of data or the threshold time duration to be configured based on a location of the mobile device (Lee: Para. [0080], The mobile terminal 100 provides User Interfaces (UIs) (e.g., 1510 of FIGS. 15, 1610 and 1650 of FIG. 16, and 1710 of FIG. 17) for setting a screen unlock mode (or screen lock mode) to a user. Para. [0094], The mobile terminal 100 may store a distance between a wireless device and the mobile terminal 100 designated via a UI and search for a wireless device transmitting a signal having an intensity equal to or greater than an intensity of a reception signal corresponding to the stored distance. Furthermore, the predetermined distance may be a default value (e.g., 2 m) that is stored in the mobile terminal 100 either when the mobile terminal 100 is manufactured or when a command for controlling the first screen unlock mode or screen unlock configuration application is stored in a memory. Furthermore, if the communication range of a wireless device is sufficiently narrow (e.g., from 2 m to 5 m), the predetermined distance may refer to a communication range in which the corresponding wireless device may be detected without any particular setting.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Lee with the system and method of Chun and Park to include to be configured based on a location of the mobile device because this functionality provides techniques for utilizing distance for controlling screen lock of a device (Lee: Para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claims 8-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0233949 by Xia et al (Fig. 4E).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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). 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.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights