DETAILED ACTION
This Action is a response to the filing received 6 February 2024. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 February 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasukawa, Masaaki, U.S. 6,437,786 B1 (“Yasukawa”)1.
Regarding claim 1, Yasukawa teaches: A projector, comprising: a control unit, a storage medium, and a projection module, wherein the control unit is coupled to the storage medium and the projection module, the control unit comprises a script interpreter (Yasukawa, e.g., FIG. 1, showing a projector comprising CPU 1, graphic controller 3, ROM 2, RAM 6, VRAM 7, projector IF 14 with projector display device, and sound controller 9 with speaker 10), and the control unit is configured to:
detect whether the storage medium stores a first script when the projector is in an operation state, wherein the first script comprises a first script language instruction (Yasukawa, e.g., 13:44-61, “if a key input occurs from the key inputting device 11 while the image is reproduced, the controller 61 checks whether there is a script …”);
interpret the first script through the script interpreter so as to obtain the first script language instruction in response to the storage medium storing the first script (Yasukawa, e.g., 13:44-61, “If there is a script, it is processed by the script interpreter 63, and the execution result is received …”); and
configure a display parameter of the projection module according to the first script language instruction, wherein the projection module plays a multimedia file according to the display parameter (Yasukawa, e.g., 13:44-61, “The processing corresponding to the result is executed … script processing is performed by the script interpreter 63 and the result is passed to the controller … image data reproduction operation is repeated until the display of the entire image is completed …” See also, e.g., 14:5-12, “if the image to be displayed is a moving picture …” and 9:56-59, “digital videos, still pictures … script, and sound data are included in the image data …”).
Claim 9 is rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that with respect to claim 9, Yasukawa further teaches: A control method of a projector (Yasukawa, e.g., the method of FIG. 7), wherein the projector comprises a storage medium, a control unit, and a projection module, the control unit is coupled to the storage medium and the projection module, the control unit comprises a script interpreter (Yasukawa, e.g., FIG. 1, showing a projector comprising CPU 1, graphic controller 3, ROM 2, RAM 6, VRAM 7, projector IF 14 with projector display device, and sound controller 9 with speaker 10), and the control method comprises: [[[the operations performed by the projector of claim 1]]].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Yasukawa further teaches: wherein the control unit is further configured to: detect whether the storage medium stores the first script according to a preset cycle (Yasukawa, e.g., 13:51-61, “reproduction of the image data … of the frame number set in the frame counter is completed, a frame completion event occurs. If this event requires script processing (711), script processing is performed …” and 13:39-50, “image of a moving picture … are displayed by the projector … if a key input occurs from the key inputting device 11 while the image is reproduced, the controller 61 checks whether there is a script corresponding to the event …”).
Claim 10 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Yasukawa further teaches: wherein the projector further comprises a connection interface, the control unit is coupled to the connection interface, and the control unit is further configured to: detect whether the first script in the storage medium is modified or read/written through the connection interface; and interpret the modified or read/written first script through the script interpreter, if yes, in response to the modified or read/written first script in the storage medium (Yasukawa, e.g., 8:23-27, “a script processing device that receives a script from the projector and processes the script, and a device that controls the image formation device according to the result from the script processing device.” Examiner’s note: receiving the script is interpreted as reading the script, wherein the script is initially stored in a storage medium from which it is received).
Claim 16 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 8 above.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa in view of Abrahamson et al., U.S. 2013/0344469 A1 (“Abrahamson”).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Yasukawa does not more particularly teach detecting whether a second script is present in response to detecting a power-on instruction, interpreting the second script to obtain a second script instruction, and configuring a function required by the projector before it starts the operation state. However, Abrahamson does teach: wherein the control unit is further configured to: detect whether a power-on instruction is received; detect whether the storage medium stores a second script in response to the power-on instruction, wherein the second script comprises a second script language instruction (Abrahamson, e.g., ¶55, “Following start-up process 30, process 32 is executed by base application 21 to check for the presence of scripts 25 in user script pool 22 …”);
interpret the second script through the script interpreter so as to obtain the second script language instruction in response to the storage medium storing the second script (Abrahamson, e.g., ¶43, “’script’ refers to an executable computer program written for a runtime environment … scripting languages are typically interpreted …”); and
configure a function required by the projector before the projector starts the operation state according to the second script language instruction (Abrahamson, e.g., ¶55, “scripts 25 that are valid in this regard are then allowed to add to and modify base application 21, for example to provide … menu items, control buttons …” Examiner’s note: the menu items and control buttons are presented on a display (i.e., by a projection system that projects images onto end user devices), and the script is interpreted an executed in order to provide extra functionality to the base application prior to the full execution of the base application, to provide modified projected images and user interfaces) for the purpose of enabling the customization and add-on of interactive multimedia displays in a networked classroom environment via the use of scripting extensions (Abrahamson, e.g., ¶¶41-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for using scripts to control reproduction of data in a network projector system as taught by Yasukawa to provide for detecting whether a second script is present in response to detecting a power-on instruction, interpreting the second script to obtain a second script instruction, and configuring a function required by the projector before it starts the operation state because the disclosure of Abrahamson shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for using scripting to customize the functionality of an image projection device system to provide for detecting whether a second script is present in response to detecting a power-on instruction, interpreting the second script to obtain a second script instruction, and configuring a function required by the projector before it starts the operation state for the purpose of enabling the customization and add-on of interactive multimedia displays in a networked classroom environment via the use of scripting extensions (Abrahamson, Id.).
Claim 11 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa in view of Finger et al., U.S. 2007/0006238 A1 (“Finger”).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Yasukawa does not more particularly teach detecting whether a third script is present in response to detecting a shutdown instruction, interpreting the third script to obtain a third script instruction, and configuring a function required by the projector before it ends the operation state. However, Finger does teach: wherein the control unit is further configured to: detect whether a shutdown instruction is received (Finger, e.g., ¶¶61-62, “illustrative method for shutting down an interactive media application … applications may need to perform some final processing as a part of shutting down … applications must ordinarily reserve enough time to finish shutdown processing while still valid. However, applications may not reserve sufficient time and a particular process for shutting down the application is followed …” See also, e.g., FIG. 8 as a whole, which is a process for shutting down the application (i.e., necessitating some instruction, whether from a user interaction or otherwise, to shut down the application));
detect whether the storage medium stores a third script in response to the shutdown instruction, wherein the third script comprises a third script language instruction (Finger, e.g., ¶32, “markup pages … may be used in some settings to fire events into an execution context (created by the script files 117 and 119 …” See also, e.g., ¶¶63-64, “a determination is made as to whether the application has registered a listener for an ‘OnShutdown’ event … If [yes], then the process continues at block 825 where the current title is paused … which results in an application remaining Valid while it runs scripts …”);
interpret the third script through the script interpreter so as to obtain the third script language instruction in response to the storage medium storing the third script (Finger, e.g., ¶37, “components of ICP 335 include, for example … script language interpreter …”); and
configure a function required by the projector before the projector ends the operation state according to the third script language instruction (Finger, e.g., ¶32, “markup pages … may be used in some settings to fire events into an execution context (created by the script files 117 and 119 …” See also, e.g., ¶¶63-64, “a determination is made as to whether the application has registered a listener for an ‘OnShutdown’ event … If [yes], then the process continues at block 825 where the current title is paused … which results in an application remaining Valid while it runs scripts …” See also, e.g., ¶67, “applications which enable interactive games where scores need to be saved at shutdown …” Examiner’s note: the script configures a function (i.e., a shutdown / data saving function) required by the projector (the ICP (interactive content processor of an interactive media player) before the projector ends the operation (Valid) state) for the purpose of utilizing customizable scripts to extend the functionality of multimedia projecting devices, in particular during changes in device or multimedia state (Finger, e.g., ¶¶19-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for using scripts to control reproduction of data in a network projector system as taught by Yasukawa to provide for detecting whether a third script is present in response to detecting a shutdown instruction, interpreting the third script to obtain a third script instruction, and configuring a function required by the projector before it ends the operation state because the disclosure of Finger shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for using scripts to manage functionality between state changes of an interactive media playing device system to provide for detecting whether a third script is present in response to detecting a shutdown instruction, interpreting the third script to obtain a third script instruction, and configuring a function required by the projector before it ends the operation state for the purpose of utilizing customizable scripts to extend the functionality of multimedia projecting devices, in particular during changes in device or multimedia state (Finger, Id.).
Claim 12 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa in view of Ghattu, Satya, U.S. 2006/0036715 A1 (“Ghattu”).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Yasukawa does not more particularly teach that the script interpreter supports Java. However, Ghattu does teach: wherein the script interpreter supports at least one of the following programming languages: C language, C++ language, Java language, and Python language (Ghattu, e.g., ¶36, “scripting tool can be implemented in the Java programming language environment, wherein the tool can support a script interpreter for a scripting language …”) for the purpose of allowing a user to use a scripting tool to perform programmatic tasks on a device (Ghattu, e.g., ¶¶14-15, 36-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for using scripts to control reproduction of data in a network projector system as taught by Yasukawa to provide that the script interpreter supports Java because the disclosure of Ghattu shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for using a scripting tool to perform server device configuration change operations to provide that the script interpreter supports Java for the purpose of allowing a user to use a scripting tool to perform programmatic tasks on a device (Ghattu, Id.).
Claim 13 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa in view of Sears et al., U.S. 2006/0132065 A1 (“Sears”).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Yasukawa does not more particularly teach that the projector comprises a communication transceiver coupled to the control unit and configured to receive the script thereby and store the script in storage. However, Sears does teach: wherein the projector further comprises a communication transceiver, the control unit is coupled to the communication transceiver, and the control unit is further configured to: receive the first script through the communication transceiver; and store the first script in the storage medium (Sears, e.g., ¶25, “a lighting control method, a script is written in a lighting control scripting language … script is then sent from master controller 12 to one of the light controllers 16 …” See also, e.g., ¶26, “… each light controller 16 is sent a script … which defines that light controller’s operation … Each light controller 16 receiving a script stores the script in memory …”) for the purpose of permitting the extension of functionality of lighting projection hardware using adaptable scripts that may be distributed to various target hardware devices (Sears, e.g., ¶¶8-15, 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for using scripts to control reproduction of data in a network projector system as taught by Yasukawa to provide that the projector comprises a communication transceiver coupled to the control unit and configured to receive the script thereby and store the script in storage because the disclosure of Sears shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a lighting projection system by extending functionality through script programming and distribution to provide that the projector comprises a communication transceiver coupled to the control unit and configured to receive the script thereby and store the script in storage for the purpose of permitting the extension of functionality of lighting projection hardware using adaptable scripts that may be distributed to various target hardware devices (Sears, Id.).
Claim 14 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa in view of Van Doorn, Markus Gerardus Leonardus Maria, U.S. 2008/0265797 A1 (“Van Doorn”).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Yasukawa does not more particularly teach that the display parameter comprises an illumination and/or a brightness. However, Van Doorn does teach: wherein the display parameter comprises at least one of the following: a RGB value, a color temperature, an illumination, and a brightness (Van Doorn, e.g., ¶17, “light levels correspond to images desirable to the end-user, which images may be provided by the user or selected by the user from predefined set of images. Scripts are used to associate the images with various light/image levels. The end-user may select different scripts or different images, or may modify scripts and associated images and light/image levels as desired. Illustratively, a high illumination level … intermediate illumination level increased from a lower level … is substantially simultaneously or followed by the changing of images or levels thereof …”) for the purpose of modifying or extending the functionality of image projection devices to enhance a projection display of media by the devices (Van Doorn, e.g., ¶¶18, 22-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for using scripts to control reproduction of data in a network projector system as taught by Yasukawa to provide that the display parameter comprises an illumination and/or a brightness because the disclosure of Van Doorn shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for scripting operations performable by a network of image rendering devices to provide that the display parameter comprises an illumination and/or a brightness for the purpose of modifying or extending the functionality of image projection devices to enhance a projection display of media by the devices (Van Doorn, Id.).
Claim 15 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons, whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529, and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at (571) 272-3708. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. 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.
/Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
1 This reference is not cited on the PTOL-892 because it is cited on the 6 February 2024 IDS.