DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
The Amendment, filed 01/15/2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the most recent Office Action, dated 10/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits “As described above, in step 43, the display firmware upgrade module of Ni receives a data segment. If the data segment corresponds to firmware upgrade, ……. Accordingly, Ni fails to teach importing the digital file from the host display in response to authenticating the digital signature, as recited in amended claim 1” (Remarks. P. 8). However, the Examiner respectfully disagree.
Applicant’s newly added claim limitation states “importing the digital file from the host display device in response to authenticating the digital signature” and applicant pointed to paragraph [0045] for support for this newly added claim limitation. However, paragraph [0045] merely states “the file 120 may include a digital signature to authenticate the file 120. For example, in some configurations, the display device 100 may refuse to upload and/or install the current settings scheme stored on the file 120 without a verified digital signature”, display device install and/or upload settings based on the verified digital signature, there is no suggestion of importing the digital file from the host display device in response to authenticating the digital signature, as stated in newly amended claim. Furthermore, claim already states “authenticating, by a recipient display device, the digital signature in the machine-readable code” meaning the digital file containing the machine-readable code is already imported to the recipient display device so the display device can authenticate the stored digital signature.
As disclosed in the previous office action, Ni in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0051] teach data or machine readable code on the storage device 146 includes a digital signature, and the display device authenticates the digital signature before installing and/or uploading the firmware, which is similar to what is included in the applicant’s specification paragraph [0045] as stated above. Therefore, the Examiner maintains his rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 1 limitation states “importing the digital file from the host display device in response to authenticating the digital signature” and claim 21 limitation states “export, in response to producing the machine-readable code and authenticating the digital signature” and applicant pointed to paragraph [0045] for support for this newly added claim limitation. However, paragraph [0045] merely states “the file 120 may include a digital signature to authenticate the file 120. For example, in some configurations, the display device 100 may refuse to upload and/or install the current settings scheme stored on the file 120 without a verified digital signature”, display device install and/or upload settings based on the verified digital signature, there is no suggestion of importing the digital file from the host or exporting the file from the host to the display device in response to authenticating the digital signature, as stated in newly amended claims. Furthermore, claim already states “authenticating, by a recipient display device, the digital signature in the machine-readable code” meaning the digital file containing the machine-readable code is already imported to the recipient display device so the display device can authenticate the stored digital signature.
For purpose of examination, the newly added claim limitation is interpreted as to upload and/or install the current settings in response to authenticating the digital signature, as supported by specifications paragraph [0045].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20140035795), in the view of Chiang (US 20080231638), and further in the view of NI (US 20230236817).
Regarding claim 1: Park teaches a method for updating display settings of a display device: altering, by display control circuitry in a host display device to generate a machine-readable code corresponding to a display setting; exporting, by the host display device in response to altering the display setting, a digital file containing the machine-readable code to a storage medium; executing, by a recipient display device in response to importing the digital file from the host display device, the machine-readable code in the digital file to update the display setting for a display in the recipient display device (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0044-0057, 0079-0110] teach an external storage medium 20 comprises initial settings for a host display apparatus 100, connecting the external storage medium 20 to connector 110 of host display apparatus 100 to import the initial setting and generating and/or updating settings for recipient display devices 200-400, exporting the updated settings to an external storage medium 20, the only way or form a digital storage medium stores information is in form of a digital file, so it is inherent that the settings are stored as digital file; importing the settings to the recipient display device and since settings are processed via processor and stored in a memory it is inherent they include machine readable code, and also inherent that data is stored onto memory in forms of files do it can be distinguished from other data. S130 updating the setting information while the external storage device is connected to the first or host display 100, the settings are manipulated by the user for either the first display device and/or the other recipient display devices and stored on the external storage device, and user inputs can be provided via remote control or menu button on the display of a host display device).
Park does not explicitly disclose generating an on-screen display of a host display device; altering the display setting through an on-screen display of the host display device; and the machine-readable code including a digital signature; authenticating, by the recipient display device, the digital signature in the machine-readable code; importing the digital file from the host display device in response to authenticating the digital signature.
However, Chiang teaches generating an on-screen display of a host display device; altering the display setting through an on-screen display of the host display device (Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0025] teach an on-screen display or OSD of the host display to alter the settings, and storing the settings on a memory device 124 and transferring the settings stored to a second display device S408-S410). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park’s invention by including above teachings of Chiang, because on-screen menu allows the user to visualize the settings and make changes easily, as taught by Chiang. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, NI teaches the machine-readable code including a digital signature; authenticating, by the recipient display device, the digital signature in the machine-readable code; and importing the digital file from the host display device in response to authenticating the digital signature (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0051] teach data or machine readable code on the storage device 146 includes a digital signature, and the display device authenticates the digital signature and before installing and/or uploading the firmware, which is similar to what is included in the applicant’s specification paragraph [0045] as stated above). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park’s invention by including above teachings of NI, because utilizing digital signatures allows the display to securely upgrade its files, as taught by NI. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 & 24: Combination of Park and Chiang teaches wherein generating the machine-readable code includes selecting a setpoint of the display setting through an interface on the host display device (Park in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0045, 0055, 0091-0110] and Chiang Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0025] teach an on-screen display of the host display device to alter the settings). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Park and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 4, 25, and 32: Combination of Park and Chiang teach wherein the interface is associated with one of the on-screen display of the host display device, a software application on the host display device, and a web-based application accessed through the host display device (Chiang in Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0025] teach an on-screen display of the host display device to alter the settings). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Park and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 5 & 27: Park teaches wherein exporting the machine-readable code comprises downloading the machine-readable code to a storage medium; and wherein the host display device is configured to download, to export the digital file, the machine-readable code to a storage medium (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0044-0057, 0079-0110] teach settings are saved on the external storage medium 20).
Regarding claim 6 & 28: Park teaches wherein the storage medium is selected from a list comprising: a USB device, an external hard drive, an electronic device storage medium, and a network storage; and wherein the storage medium is a physical external storage device (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 7: Park teaches wherein initiating importing the machine-readable code comprises connecting the storage medium to the recipient display device (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0044-0057, 0079-0110] teach connecting the storage medium 20 to the recipient display device via ports 210-410 to initiating import).
Regarding claims 8 & 26: Combination of Park and Chiang teaches wherein importing of the machine-readable code includes sending, by the host display device the machine-readable code to the recipient display device over a network; and wherein the host display device is configured to download, to export the digital file, the machine-readable code over a network (Park in Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0044-0057, 0079-0110] teach initiating import of settings code from an external storage device attached to the recipient display. Further, Chiang in Figs. 1, 3-4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0023-0025] teach display device can access and send data such as machine-readable code over a network or wireless). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park’s invention by including above teachings of Chiang, because sending data over a network removes the necessity of using an external attachable storage device and also the user to easily transfer the data wirelessly, as taught by Chiang. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 9: Park teaches wherein the machine-readable code includes a list of codes, wherein each code is associated with one of the display settings (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0044-0057, 0079-0110] teach the processor processes and stores plurality of settings meanings machine readable code by the processor includes list of plurality codes associated with settings).
Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 recites similar claim limitations as in claim 1. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 22: Combination of Park and Chiang teaches wherein the display setting is from the group consisting of brightness, color, contrast, image quality (Chiang Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0025] teach setting is from the group consisting brightness, color, image quality, contrast). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Park and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Park and Chiang does not explicitly disclose the display setting includes language, sleep timer, and refresh rate.
However, an Official Notice is taken to note that the display settings such as language, sleep timer, and refresh rate are very common display settings and is notoriously well-known and commonly used in the art. It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to include display settings of language, sleep timer, and refresh rate along with other display settings as taught by combination of Park and Chiang, because language settings can help variety of users to comfortably use the display, sleep timer helps reduce power consumption, and refresh rate settings can help improve picture quality. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 23: Combination of Park and Chiang teach wherein the recipient display device is configured to execute, in response to importing the digital file from the host display device, the machine-readable code in the digital file to update the display setting for a display in the recipient display device (Park in Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0044-0057, 0079-0110] and also, Chiang in Figs. 1, 3-4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0023-0025]).
Regarding claim 29: Park teaches further comprising a port that provides a connection between the host display device and the storage medium (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0045-0046, 0079-0089] #110 connection port).
Regarding claims 30 & 31: Combination of Park and Chiang wherein the host display device is configured to receive, via the on-screen display, a setpoint of the display setting; and wherein the host display device is configured to receive the setpoint through an interface on the host display device (Park in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0045, 0055, 0091-0110] and Chiang Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph [0004-0006, 0025] teach an on-screen display of the host display device to alter the settings). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Park and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
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 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 AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIT CHATLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624