DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/6/2025 and 12/8/2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 11/6/2025 and 12/8/2025 have been entered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/4/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The title submitted on 11/6/2025 is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-38 and 40 are pending and currently being examined.
Claims 21 and 37 are independent.
Claims 1-20 are previously canceled.
Claims 23, 27 and 39 are newly canceled.
Claims 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, 37, 38 and 40 are recently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 21-22, 24-26, 28-38 and 40 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.
Claims 21 and 37 recite “wherein the third partial area is configured to display an icon for executing another application unrelated to the turntable-themed user interface”, and “wherein a screen for the another application is displayed in the third partial area in response to execution of the another application while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display”. The specification merely describes that “Although not illustrated in FIG. 11, an additional partial area may be designated for an additional touch user interface. This partial area is referred to as a third partial area. A user interface (e.g., icon) for performing other applications or programs capable of being executed on the display device 100 may be configured and displayed in the third area. When the user applies a touch input to the corresponding user interface, an application or program related thereto is launched, and a scene for the executed application or program is displayed on the display”, ¶ 174, and “The controller 180 may display a user interface for executing another application in a third partial area of the display 150. A touch UI may be configured in the area where the corresponding user interface is displayed, thereby detecting a user's touch input. Accordingly, when the user's touch input is detected, the controller 180 may execute the other application installed on the display device 100 and display an image for the executed application on the display 150”, ¶ 221 (as published). However, not of these is reflective how the application is “unrelated” to the turntable-themed user interface or of exactly were on the display 150 the application is displayed (e.g., in a third partial area) or how the display affects other partial display areas (“while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display”), as claimed. Simply because the applications are “other applications or programs” does not mean they are unrelated. E.g., a video application may play videos related to an audio/record currently being played.
Claims 22, 24-26, 28-36, 38 and 40 are also rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 37 recite wherein the third partial area is configured to display an icon for executing another application unrelated to the turntable-themed user interface”, and “wherein a screen for the another application is displayed in the third partial area”. Here, this is unclear because there is a lack of correspondence between the specification and the claims. The specification teaches that an image of an executed application may be displayed generally on display 150, ¶ 221, and not that “displayed in the third partial area in response to execution of the another application while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display”. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP 2173.03. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to display of different applications in separate portions. Correction required.
Claims 22, 24-26, 28-36, 38 and 40 are also rejected as they depend on the claim(s) 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 25-26, 28-30, 32-38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisy; Kyran (hereinafter Daisy – US 20100318204 A1) in view of Khani; Aamer (hereinafter Khani – US 20150186029 A1), Shin; In-young et al. (hereinafter Shin – US 20140033050 A1) and Walkin; Brandon M. et al. (hereinafter Walkin – US 20200326839 A1).
Independent Claim 21:
Daisy teaches A movable display apparatus configured to display a turntable-themed user interface, (a system [including a display apparatus] displays an animation of a virtual turntable [“turntable-themed user interface”] which depicts movement of a record and stylus similar to a conventional physical turntable, Abstract and fig. 1. The display apparatus is implementable as a “portable” monitor or computer and monitor [“movable display apparatus”], ¶ 32. The display apparatus may be touchscreen, and this is referred to as being a “user interface”, ¶ 20 and fig. 1. Alternatively, at least control options, such as Menu 30 displayed at the left portion of the touchscreen is “a user interface” with which the user can interact to with the touchscreen, ¶ 40 and fig. 1)
the movable display apparatus comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive data to and from a mobile device by wire or wirelessly; (the display is configured for wireless transmission [configured to transmit…data to a mobile device…wirelessly], as such, both the monitor and computer are mobile devices, ¶ 32. The display device is also to “transmit” data to the computer, in addition to receiving data [transceiver…transmit and receive data to and from a mobile device], at least because the computer is capable of wirelessly driving the display)
a display having a touch screen (the apparatus includes a “touch screen” 2, ¶ 42 and fig. 1)
(the display playback an animation with movement of the record and stylus [displaying video data], e.g., similar to a conventional physical turntable, Abstract. As such, video data is displayed in as much as the display portions used for the animated record and stylus. Furthermore, the display video media, ¶ 11)
; (the touchscreen is referred to as being a “user interface”, ¶ 20 and fig. 1. Alternatively at least control options, such as Menu 30 displayed at the left portion of the touchscreen is “a user interface” with which the user can interact to with the touchscreen, ¶ 40 and fig. 1)
[…the system] configured to:+6+
detect a control command for the audio data received […]from the mobile device; (e.g., a touch activation of one of the cue points 52, 54, 56 and 58 [“detect a control command…received] , ¶ 45.)
control the display to display:
a tonearm of a turntable in a first partial area of the display; (an area [a first partial area] of the display corresponding to a stylus of a video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10)
a long-playing (LP) […] record (disc) disposed on the turntable in a second partial area of the display; (another area [a second partial area] of the display corresponding to a record of the video [the animation] can also be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10.)
and an application user interface in a third partial area of the display[…],
wherein the first partial area is configured to display a first video depicting the tonearm moving from a first position to a second position, based on the detected control command for the audio data received from the mobile device[…] being a first type, (an area [a first partial area] of the display corresponding to a stylus of a video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10. the position of the stylus [tonearm] is adjusted to correlate to a position on the record related to the activated/touched cue point [control command for the audio data received from the mobile device[…] being a first type], ¶ 45-46. the display playback an animation with movement of the record and stylus [displaying video data], e.g., similar to a conventional physical turntable, Abstract. As such, video data is displayed in as much as the display portions used for the animated record and stylus. Furthermore, the display video media, ¶ 11)
or display a second video depicting the tonearm of the turntable moving from the second position to the first position, based on the detected control command for the audio data received from the mobile device […] being a second type, (this limitation is made optional due to “or”. However, the limitation is mapped given claim 22, that uses “the second type”. a scratching effect [“noise audio data”] can be produced [or commanded] “by moving the record 10 backward and forwards with sufficient speed” or by “dragging stylus 20 across record 10, perpendicular to the direction of rotation of record 10” [either option is a “control command for the audio data received from the mobile device […] being a second type”], ¶ 48.)
and wherein the third partial area is configured to display an icon for executing another application unrelated to the turntable-themed user interface installed in the movable display apparatus, and wherein a screen for the another application is displayed in the third partial area in response to execution of the another application while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display[…].
Daisy does not appear to expressly teach, but Khani teaches/suggests
that the audio data is outputted by the display apparatus’s “speaker” or that the detecting and controlling functions are performed by “at least one processor” of the display apparatus (a touch screen device including user interface, audio, and video processors, and a speaker, ¶ 75 and fig. 12, for outputting audio data, ¶ 88).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Daisy to include that the audio data is outputted by the display apparatus’s “speaker” or that the detecting and controlling functions are performed by “at least one processor” of the display apparatus, as taught/suggested by Khani.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide for performing and outputting display and audio functions in a known and effective manner, Khani ¶¶ 75 and 88 and fig. 12. Daisy-Khani does not appear to expressly teach, but Shin teaches:
that the control command for audio data is received “from the mobile device” (a method in which an external display device is connect to mobile device that has remote control authority and can control the display device, ¶¶ 63 and 297 and figs. 22 and 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Daisy to include that the control command for audio data is received “from the mobile device”, as taught by Shin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities of the apparatus and interaction convenience to the user by being able to receive remote control commands, Shin ¶¶ 7 and 297.
Daisy-Khani-Shin doesn’t specify that the record is “a long-playing (LP)” record. However, the examiner had taken Official Notice that LP record format is one of the few well-known formats for phonograph records. This and other instances of this official notice in this office action are now considered applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), pursuant MPEP § 2144.03.C, as they were not previously traversed by the applicant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Daisy to include that the record is “a long-playing (LP)” record, as taught/suggested by the AAPA.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to depict the record to mimic the look of a well-known phonograph record, AAPA.
Daisy-Khani-Shin does not appear to expressly teach, but Walkin teaches:
and an application user interface in a third partial area of the display (concurrent display of two or more applications, ¶ 379)
and wherein the third partial area is configured to display an icon for executing another application unrelated to the turntable-themed user interface installed in the movable display apparatus, (applications are launched by activating their respective application icons, ¶ 405)
and wherein a screen for the another application is displayed in the third partial area in response to execution of the another application while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display. (the concurrent display of the two or more applications can be accomplished, e.g., by allowing the user to view and interact with split views of the different applications, ¶ 412 and fig. 4B29)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Daisy to include and an application user interface in a third partial area of the display and wherein the third partial area is configured to display an icon for executing another application unrelated to the turntable-themed user interface installed in the movable display apparatus, and wherein a screen for the another application is displayed in the third partial area in response to execution of the another application while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display, as taught by Walkin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the operability and efficiency of the apparatus, Walkin ¶ 412.
Claim 22:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display a third video while the speaker outputs the audio data based on the detected control command for the audio data being the second type. (Herein, this claim is understood as intended to recite “to display a third video, while the speaker outputs the audio data, based on the detected control command for the audio data being the second type”, see Claim Objection section. A scratching effect [“noise audio data”] can be produced “by moving the record 10 backward and forwards with sufficient speed” or by “dragging stylus 20 across record 10, perpendicular to the direction of rotation of record 10” [either option is “control command for the audio data being the second type”], ¶ 48. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that any number of videos [e.g., first, second, and third videos] may be displayed depicting movement/animation of the stylus from a current position of the stylus, touch of the cue points, or movement of the record, e.g., a video of the stylus moving to a second point [third video…audio data being the second type]). Playback points, such as cue points, may be specified “during” the playback of a song [while the speaker outputs the audio data], ¶ 43)
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
divide the display into at least two areas including a first area and a second area; (In Daisy, the display is divided, at least in terms of position and separation by gaps, into at least a center portion [a first of at least two areas] for displaying animations of the record and stylus , and a left section [a second of at least two areas] displaying a user interface controls, such as menu 30 and cue point controls 52, 54, 56 and 58, see fig. 1)
and control the display to display the first video or the second video in the first area and display the user interface in the second area. (In Daisy, the display is divided, at least in terms of position and separation by gaps, into at least a right portion [a first of at least two areas] for displaying animations of the record and stylus [display the first video or the second video], and a left section [a second of at least two areas] displaying a user interface controls, such as menu 30 and cue point controls 52, 54, 56 and 58, see fig. 1)
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: configure a first touch portion of the display corresponding to the tonearm; (an area of the display corresponding to the stylus [display corresponding to the tonearm] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10)
and configure a second touch portion of the display corresponding to the […] record. (another area of the display corresponding to the record [display corresponding to the record] can also be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10.)
Daisy doesn’t specify that the record depicted in the phonograph video/animation is a “long-playing (LP)” record. However, the AAPA teaches that LP record format is one of the few well-known formats for phonograph records.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Daisy to include the record depicted in the phonograph video/animation is a “long-playing (LP)” record, as taught/suggested by the AAPA.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to depict the record to mimic the look of a well-known phonograph record, the AAPA.
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
control the display to display the first video based on detection of a touch input along a first direction received through the first touch portion of the user interface; (an area of the display corresponding to the stylus of the video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10, the movement of the stylus is either away or toward [directions] the inner or outer circumferences, Daisy ¶ 39)
and control the display to display the second video based on detection of a touch input along a second direction received through the first touch portion of the user interface. (an area of the display corresponding to the stylus of the video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10, the movement of the stylus is either away or toward [directions] the inner or outer circumferences, Daisy ¶ 39)
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display a cover image corresponding to the audio data in a center of […] record. (the record includes a label portion 14 that displays information such as graphics [cover image] related to the song, title or artist, ¶ 37 and fig. 1. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that “cover image” includes graphics that appear at outside of the record, such as on the label)
Daisy doesn’t specify that the record depicted in the phonograph video/animation is a “the LP” record. However, the AAPA teaches that LP record format is one of the few well-known formats for phonograph records.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Daisy to include the record depicted in the phonograph video/animation is a “long-playing (LP)” record, as taught/suggested by the AAPA.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to depict the record to mimic the look of a well-known phonograph record, the AAPA.
Claim 29:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the third video depicts that the tonearm swings along a swing path around a swing axis, (the stylus arm is animated to seem to pivot around pivot point 27 [swing axis], ¶ 42)
and a […] record rotates around a rotation axis as output of the audio data by the speaker continues. (the record is animated to move in a circumferential direction as a physical record would, Daisy ¶ 48, as such herein it is broadly interpreted that the movement is rotational movement “around a rotation axis”, such as the point in the middle of the record, see fig. 1. Furthermore, the movement is understood to occur “as output of the audio data by the speaker continues” at least because a slowing effect is produced, Daisy ¶ 48, which effectively slows down the playback of the audio file, Daisy ¶ 49)
Daisy doesn’t specify that the record depicted in the phonograph video/animation is a “long-playing (LP)” record. However, the AAPA teaches that LP record format is one of the few well-known formats for phonograph records.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Daisy to include the record depicted in the phonograph video/animation is a “long-playing (LP)” record, as taught/suggested by the AAPA.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to depict the record to mimic the look of a well-known phonograph record, the AAPA.
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy does not appear to expressly teach, but Khani further teaches/suggests:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a rotation state of the display; and control the display to display the user interface based on the detected rotation state (a system in which changes of orientation for one or more display devices is detected as the one or more devices rotate, and images displayed therein are adjusted to account for the orientation, ¶¶ 4 and 48 and 70 and fig. 10. Note that the embodiments described in Khani can be in a single device, in multiple devices, in a system, or in any other suitable manner, ¶ 42).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Daisy to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a rotation state of the display; and control the display to display the video data based on the detected rotation state, as taught/suggested by Khani.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility of the apparatus by allowing the orienting the apparatus as desired by the user, Khani ¶ 44.
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the first video comprises:
a first segment depicting the tonearm of the turntable at the first position; (In Daisy, the user is able to drag the stylus to a desired position, Abstract and ¶ 10. At least because the movement of the stylus on the display is an animated movement, see Abstract, it is interpreted that the movement is animated based on at least 3 different frames [first, second, and third segment] to animate the dragging of the stylus from one position to another)
a second segment depicting the tonearm moving from the first position to the second position; (In Daisy, the user is able to drag the stylus to a desired position, Abstract and ¶ 10. At least because the movement of the stylus on the display is an animated movement, see Abstract, it is interpreted that the movement is animated based on at least 3 different frames [first, second, and third segment] to animate the dragging of the stylus from one position to another)
and a third segment depicting the tonearm of the turntable at the second position. (In Daisy, the user is able to drag the stylus to a desired position, Abstract and ¶ 10. At least because the movement of the stylus on the display is an animated movement, see Abstract, it is interpreted that the movement is animated based on at least 3 different frames [first, second, and third segment] to animate the dragging of the stylus from one position to another)
Claim 33:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the second video comprises:
a first segment depicting the tonearm of the turntable at the second position; (In Daisy, the user is able to drag the stylus to a desired position, Abstract and ¶ 10. At least because the movement of the stylus on the display is an animated movement, see Abstract, it is interpreted that the movement is animated based on at least 3 different frames [first, second, and third segment] to animate the dragging of the stylus from one position to another)
a second segment depicting the tonearm moving from the second position to the first position; In Daisy, the user is able to drag the stylus to a desired position, Abstract and ¶ 10. At least because the movement of the stylus on the display is an animated movement, see Abstract, it is interpreted that the movement is animated based on at least 3 different frames [first, second, and third segment] to animate the dragging of the stylus from one position to another)
and a third segment depicting the tonearm of the turntable at the first position. (In Daisy, the user is able to drag the stylus to a desired position, Abstract and ¶ 10. At least because the movement of the stylus on the display is an animated movement, see Abstract, it is interpreted that the movement is animated based on at least 3 different frames [first, second, and third segment] to animate the dragging of the stylus from one position to another)
Claim 34:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
control the speaker to output the audio data while the display displays the first video; (Playback points, such as cue points, may be specified [while the display displays the first video] “during” the playback of a song [control the speaker to output the audio data], Daisy ¶ 43)
and prevent the speaker from outputting the audio data while the display displays the second video. (however, “if the stylus 20 is moved off the music portion 12, the song will cease to playback”, Daisy ¶ 42. Here)
Claim 35:
The rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
control the speaker to output the audio data based on detection of a touch input along a first direction received through the second touch portion of the user interface; (fast-forwarding, rewinding, scratching, and slowing playback of the audio [speaker] using a corresponding circumferential touch direction on the record, ¶ 48)
and control the speaker to output the audio data based on detection of a touch input along a second direction received through the second touch portion of the user interface. (fast-forwarding, rewinding, scratching, and slowing playback of the audio [speaker] using a corresponding circumferential touch direction on the record, ¶ 48)
Claim 36:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the speaker to output noise audio data with the audio data while the display displays the third video. (a scratching effect [“noise audio data”] can be produced “by moving the record 10 backward and forwards with sufficient speed” or by “dragging stylus 20 across record 10, perpendicular to the direction of rotation of record 10”, ¶ 48. )
Independent Claim 37:
Claim(s) 37 is/are directed to a method for implementing the functions of the apparatus in claim 21, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
displaying an icon in the third partial area for executing another application unrelated to the turntable-themed user interface installed in the movable display apparatus;
and displaying a screen for the another application in the third partial area in response to execution of the another application while the first partial area and the second partial area remain displayed on the display.
Claim 38:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Claim 38 is directed to a method for implemented functions of the apparatus of claim 22 and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 39:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
controlling, by the at least one processor, the display to display the first video or the second video in a first area among at least two areas of the display; (In Daisy, the display is divided, at least in terms of position and separation by gaps, into at least a center portion [a first of at least two areas] for displaying animations of the record and stylus , and a left section [a second of at least two areas] displaying a user interface controls, such as menu 30 and cue point controls 52, 54, 56 and 58, see fig. 1)
and controlling, by the at least one processor, the display to display the user interface in a second area among the at least two areas. ((In Daisy, the display is divided, at least in terms of position and separation by gaps, into at least a right portion [a first of at least two areas] for displaying animations of the record and stylus [display the first video or the second video], and a left section [a second of at least two areas] displaying a user interface controls, such as menu 30 and cue point controls 52, 54, 56 and 58, see fig. 1)
Claim 40:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
detecting a touch input to the first partial area; (an area [a first partial area] of the display corresponding to the stylus of the video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10)
displaying the first video based on the touch input being along a first direction; (an area of the display corresponding to the stylus of the video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10, the movement of the stylus is either away or toward [directions] the inner or outer circumferences, Daisy ¶ 39)
and displaying the second video based on the touch input being along a second direction. (an area of the display corresponding to the stylus of the video [the animation] can be a manipulated by touch to a desired position, Daisy ¶ 10, the movement of the stylus is either away or toward [directions] the inner or outer circumferences, Daisy ¶ 39)
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisy (US 20100318204 A1) in view of Khani (US 20150186029 A1), Shin (US 20140033050 A1) and Walkin (US 20200326839 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Pinhas; Charles-Henri Andre (hereinafter Pinhas – US 20210082382 A1).
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display [audio] information corresponding to the audio data in a portion of the first area or a portion of the second area (audio information display 32 may display information about the audio file, e.g., song title, artist, track, file, and total song or track time, Daisy ¶ 41 and fig. 1).
Daisy does not appear to expressly teach, but Pinhas teaches/suggests
that the audio information is “lyrics” (when a user uses a turntable to play a song, song lyrics is displayed, ¶¶ 106-107).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Daisy to include that the audio information is “lyrics”, as taught/suggested by Pinhas.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the functionality and usability of the apparatus and make it usable, e.g., for sing-a-long activities by displaying karaoke-style lyrics, Pinhas Abstract.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisy; Kyran (hereinafter Daisy – US 20100318204 A1) in view of Khani; Aamer (hereinafter Khani – US 20150186029 A1) and Shin (US 20140033050 A1), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hughes, David A. et al. (hereinafter Hughes – US 20020152876 A1).
Claim 27:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Daisy does not appear to expressly teach, but Hughes teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display a second user interface for executing other applications in a third area of the display the second user interface displaying an icon for launching/executing another application installed in the movable display apparatus, the other application being different from an application for displaying the turntable-themed video (a user interface for a media player includes an icon that, “when selected causes the media player application to launch an email application”, ¶ 5. Herein, a “second user interface” is broadly interpreted as including an icon. This is consistent with the Instant Specification, which describes the “user interface” as being, for example, an “icon”, see Abstract and ¶ 174, as filed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Hughes to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display a second user interface for executing other applications in a third area of the display the second user interface displaying an icon for launching/executing another application installed in the movable display apparatus, the other application being different from an application for displaying the turntable-themed video, as taught by Hughes.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the apparatus’s functionalities, by providing a convenient mechanism to distribute music samples, as in known media playing apparatuses, Hughes ¶ 2. This combination would be successful because Daisy’s apparatus, like Hughes, is a media playing apparatus, albeit turntable-themed.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisy (US 20100318204 A1) in view of Khani (US 20150186029 A1), Shin (US 20140033050 A1) and Walkin (US 20200326839 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jehan; Tristan (hereinafter Jehan – US 20190042648 A1).
Claim 31:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Daisy does not appear to expressly teach, but Jehan teaches/suggests:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
detect an input that selects one of a plurality of turntable themes; (a method in which a user of a media playback device provides a selection of a playlist previous theme, ¶ 175 and fig. 19.)
and control the display to display the video data based on the selected turntable theme. (based on the selection, the method identifies audio and visual characteristics for the playlist, ¶¶ 176-177, and displays the playlist, ¶ 178. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized Jehan’s concept of theme selection for display elements could be applied to customize display characteristics for Daisy’s turntable [turntable theme])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Daisy to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect an input that selects one of a plurality of turntable themes; and control the display to display the video data based on the selected turntable theme, as taught/suggested by Jehan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the apparatus by allowing display of information based on personal preferences, Jehan ¶ 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 103 arguments filed on 12/8/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
First, it is noted that the applicant hasn’t amended or responded to the rejection of the independent claims 21 and 37, or any other claim other than claim 27.
As such, the rejection(s) of the same are repeated in the § 103 rejection section above, and should be addressed in the next response from the Applicant in order to be fully responsive, as required by MPEP § 714.03.
Second, the applicant alleges, in reference to claim 27, that Daisy doesn’t disclose a “user interface [] displayed in the cited ‘top right section’ of fig. 1.” Remarks pg. 9. Applicant also alleges that the displays 32 and 34 at the top right section of fig. 1 are not user interfaces, “e.g., an interface that can receive a user input for allowing operation and/or control by the user.” Id. pgs. 9-10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
As explained in the Office action, the display of Daisy’s fig. 1 is displayed on a touchscreen, which as explained for claim 1, is referred to as being a user interface, Daisy ¶ 20 and fig. 1. As such, displays 32 and 34, as well as other input/display sub-interfaces of the touchscreen are user interfaces.
Claim 27, as amended, recites “display a second user interface for executing other applications in a third area of the display”. Here, applications are necessarily “executed” to display in displays 32 and 34. Furthermore, nothing in claim 27 requires the “second user interface” to “allow operation and/or control by the user”. As such, it seems the applicant is interpreting the term “user interface” narrower than the required “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI). See MPEP §§ 904.01 and 2103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Sakai Toyoichi et al. (JP 2008242263 A), pertinent to at least claim 1 for disclosing a digital turntable device, Abstract fig. 6. (document copy provided by applicant in IDS dated 05/17/2024)
Lee Kuk Hyun et al. (KR 20150059998 A), pertinent to at least claim 1 for disclosing a virtual LP (long play) display device, Abstract and figs 5-6. (document copy provided by applicant in IDS dated 05/17/2024)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171