DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/475,467 originally filed 09/27/2023. The amendment presented on 05/08/2026 which provides amendments to claims 1 and 10 and claims 2-4, 8, 11-13, and 17 are cancelled is hereby acknowledged.
Currently Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9-10, 14-16 and 18 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this particular instance, the prior art of Sanders has been shown to expressly teach that a user is provided an on-screen option to set either a first mode or a second mode. In addition, the prior art teaches that Sanders (in at least Figure 6 or 7) provides a decision tree in which a display mode is changed and teaches at [0087] the display can include “sub-options 144 and 146 provide selectors for determining whether to select display modes based upon a content's frame rate (option 144)” as well as at [0064] which states “the user may be prompted (e.g., via a user interface) to set the refresh rate. … the refresh rate may be a setting in a menu provided by a user interface, which the user may navigate to and change.”.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach “wherein the user setting to the second mode is for minimizing a delay that occurs between an input and an output of the video.”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use (i.e. different mode selection for different frame rates), then it meets the claim. In this instance, the prior art has been shown to provide similar modes at different refresh rates and therefore the teachings of Sanders providing a user interface to set the refresh rate from a “first mode” to a “second mode” would have yielded no more than the predictable outcome. One of ordinary skill would have expected to achieve, with different refresh rates, “minimizing a delay” by switching between refresh rates, and therefore would be obvious.
Therefore, upon review the claims are still broad enough to read on the prior art of record and will be currently maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0122637 A1 hereinafter Sanders.
Consider Claim 1:
Sanders discloses a display apparatus comprising: (Sanders, See Abstract.)
a communication interface comprising a circuit and configured to receive a video; (Sanders, [0031], “As illustrated via another dashed line, in some embodiments, the input structures 22 may not be part of the content streaming device 10. Instead, the input structures 22 may be external to the content streaming device 10 and be communicatively coupled to the content streaming device 10 (e.g., via a wired or wireless connection). In additional or alternative embodiments, the content streaming device 10 may include the input structures 22. The input structures 22 of the content streaming device 10 may enable a user to interact with the content streaming device 10 (e.g., pressing a button to increase or decrease a volume level).”)
a display panel operable at a first refresh rate or a second refresh rate, the second refresh rate having a frequency higher than a frequency of the first refresh rate; and (Sanders, [0029-0035], [0037], “For example, the display modes may include 24 Hz in SDR format, 24 Hz in HDR format, 50 Hz in SDR format, 50 Hz in HDR format, 60 Hz in HDR format, 60 Hz in SDR format, etc. It should be understood that these examples are non-limiting, and any suitable combination of display parameters are contemplated for the display modes.”)
at least one processor configured to: (Sanders, [0028], “The processor core complex 12 may carry out a variety of operations of the content streaming device 10. The processor core complex 12 may include any suitable data processing circuitry to perform these operations, such as one or more microprocessors, one or more application specific processors (ASICs), or one or more programmable logic devices (PLDs).”)
control the display panel to display a user interface (UI) for setting whether a refresh rate of the display panel change will occur based on a user setting a first mode or a second mode, control the display apparatus to operate based on the user setting inputted through the UI and an input frame rate of the video at a first frame rate or a second frame rate. (Sanders, [0030], [0040-0041], [0064], “It should be understood that, in some embodiments, at any suitable time, a user may manually set the refresh rate of the content output by the content streaming device 10. For example, when first setting up the content streaming device 10 (e.g., during an initial power up mode), the user may be prompted (e.g., via a user interface) to set the refresh rate. As another example, the refresh rate may be a setting in a menu provided by a user interface, which the user may navigate to and change. As yet another example, the user may be prompted to select or confirm the refresh rate when the processor core complex 12 determines that the content streaming device 10 has changed locations, received a signal with a different format (e.g., refresh rate), and the like.”)
wherein the first frame rate corresponds to the first refresh rate, and wherein the user setting to the second mode is for minimizing a delay that occurs between an input and an output of the video. (Sanders, [0088], “In some embodiments, a developer (e.g., of a content streaming application being executed on the content streaming device 10) and/or user may disable option 142 to avoid complications (e.g., delays) resulting from switching display modes for different format types in multi-formatted content. For example, a sports content provider may alternate between two games delivered in different formats (e.g., refresh rates, dynamic ranges, and the like). The developer and/or user may prefer that the electronic display 18 does not switch back and forth repeatedly between the display modes used to display the different formats. Similarly, if the user is watching a playlist of short videos, the user may not be able to view, for example, five seconds of a fifteen second video due to changing display modes. As such, the developer and/or user may disable option 142 to avoid such suboptimal viewing experiences.”)
Sanders, while it is considered inherently suggested in relation to the disclosure for Figures 6-8 that a user would manually select a different frame rate and maintaining selection of frame rate changes from a first to a second frame rate, does not expressly appear to explain this feature. Sanders however in an additional embodiment(s) discloses after the user setting the first mode, control the display panel to operate at the second refresh rate to output the video to the second frame rate regardless of the input frame rate of the video, and (Sanders, [0066-0080], [0077], “if the frame rate of the content does not match a supported refresh rate of the electronic display 18, the processor core complex 12 may convert the content to match a supported refresh rate of the electronic display 18 (e.g., that matches a default frame rate of the content streaming device 10 and/or that is closest to the frame rate of the content, etc.) (process block 100). The processor core complex 12 then outputs (process block 96) the content to the electronic display 18.”)
after the user setting the second mode, control the display panel to operate at the first refresh rate to output the video to the first frame rate based on the input frame rate of the video less than the second frame rate. (Sanders, [0066-0080], [0078], “If the processor core complex 12 determines that the frame rate of the content matches a supported refresh rate of the electronic display 18, the processor core complex 12 selects a display mode that is associated with the frame rate of the content. For example, when 50 Hz content is supported by the electronic display, a 50 Hz display mode is selected for 50 Hz content. The content is then output to the display 18 (block 96).”)
Sanders discloses the ability to change refresh rates from a first to a second refresh rate through various means discussed with differing embodiments as identified above. Specifically, Sanders discusses changing refresh rates both manually by user selection in paragraph [0064] via a user interface. However, The Office notes that under 35 U.S.C. 103, “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a user interface would change or maintain frame rate settings as this was taught in view of Sanders over several embodiments and would have been utilized for the art recognized purpose of providing a highly customizable content viewing experience that greatly enhances traditional content viewing experiences. This may result in increased flexibility of display mode selection, while ensuring that quality control standards of the control authority are met, resulting in increased quality in content presentation. (Sanders, [0092])
Consider Claim 9:
Sanders discloses the display apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the input frame rate of the video based on metadata of the video. (Sanders, [0092], “Further, quality control may be implemented by allowing the addition or removal of supported display modes over those indicated as supportable by a particular electronic display. For example, manufacturer data and/or control authority data may provide supplemental information related to supported display modes that may dynamically alter selectable display modes of the content streaming device. This may result in increased flexibility of display mode selection, while ensuring that quality control standards of the control authority are met, resulting in increased quality in content presentation.”)
Consider Claim 10:
Sanders discloses a control method of a display apparatus comprising a display panel operable at a first refresh rate or a second refresh rate, the control method comprising: (Sanders, See Abstract.)
receiving a video; (Sanders, [0031], “As illustrated via another dashed line, in some embodiments, the input structures 22 may not be part of the content streaming device 10. Instead, the input structures 22 may be external to the content streaming device 10 and be communicatively coupled to the content streaming device 10 (e.g., via a wired or wireless connection). In additional or alternative embodiments, the content streaming device 10 may include the input structures 22. The input structures 22 of the content streaming device 10 may enable a user to interact with the content streaming device 10 (e.g., pressing a button to increase or decrease a volume level).”)
displaying a user interface (UI) for setting whether a refresh rate of the display panel change will occur, (Sanders, [0029-0035], [0037], “For example, the display modes may include 24 Hz in SDR format, 24 Hz in HDR format, 50 Hz in SDR format, 50 Hz in HDR format, 60 Hz in HDR format, 60 Hz in SDR format, etc. It should be understood that these examples are non-limiting, and any suitable combination of display parameters are contemplated for the display modes.”)
controlling the display apparatus to operate based on a user setting of a first mode or a second mode inputted through the UI and an input frame rate of the video at a first frame rate or a second frame rate, (Sanders, [0029-0035], [0037], “For example, the display modes may include 24 Hz in SDR format, 24 Hz in HDR format, 50 Hz in SDR format, 50 Hz in HDR format, 60 Hz in HDR format, 60 Hz in SDR format, etc. It should be understood that these examples are non-limiting, and any suitable combination of display parameters are contemplated for the display modes.”)
wherein the first frame rate corresponds to the first refresh rate, and wherein the user setting to the second mode is for minimizing a delay that occurs between an input and an output of the video. (Sanders, [0088], “In some embodiments, a developer (e.g., of a content streaming application being executed on the content streaming device 10) and/or user may disable option 142 to avoid complications (e.g., delays) resulting from switching display modes for different format types in multi-formatted content. For example, a sports content provider may alternate between two games delivered in different formats (e.g., refresh rates, dynamic ranges, and the like). The developer and/or user may prefer that the electronic display 18 does not switch back and forth repeatedly between the display modes used to display the different formats. Similarly, if the user is watching a playlist of short videos, the user may not be able to view, for example, five seconds of a fifteen second video due to changing display modes. As such, the developer and/or user may disable option 142 to avoid such suboptimal viewing experiences.”)
Sanders, while it is considered inherently suggested in relation to the disclosure for Figures 6-8 that a user would manually select a different frame rate and maintaining selection of frame rate changes from a first to a second frame rate, does not expressly appear to explain this feature. Sanders however in an additional embodiment(s) discloses after the user setting the first mode, controlling the display panel to operate at the second refresh rate to output the video to the second frame rate regardless of the input frame rate of the video; and (Sanders, [0074-0080], [0077], “if the frame rate of the content does not match a supported refresh rate of the electronic display 18, the processor core complex 12 may convert the content to match a supported refresh rate of the electronic display 18 (e.g., that matches a default frame rate of the content streaming device 10 and/or that is closest to the frame rate of the content, etc.) (process block 100). The processor core complex 12 then outputs (process block 96) the content to the electronic display 18.”)
after the user setting the second mode, controlling the display panel to operate at the first refresh rate to output the video to the first frame rate based on the input frame rate of the video less than the second frame rate. (Sanders, [0074-0080], [0078], “If the processor core complex 12 determines that the frame rate of the content matches a supported refresh rate of the electronic display 18, the processor core complex 12 selects a display mode that is associated with the frame rate of the content. For example, when 50 Hz content is supported by the electronic display, a 50 Hz display mode is selected for 50 Hz content. The content is then output to the display 18 (block 96).”)
Sanders discloses the ability to change refresh rates from a first to a second refresh rate through various means discussed with differing embodiments as identified above throughout the disclosure. Specifically, as identified above, Sanders discusses changing refresh rates both manually by user selection (see [0064]) and dynamically based upon received content (see [0066-0080]). Either way, the processes of Figure 6, as one example, would still apply after either of these selections. As noted, different rates would be selected with obviously one higher than the other (i.e. the claimed “less than”). However, The Office notes that under 35 U.S.C. 103, “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a user interface would change or maintain frame rate settings as this was taught in view of Sanders over several embodiments and would have been utilized for the art recognized purpose of providing a highly customizable content viewing experience that greatly enhances traditional content viewing experiences. This may result in increased flexibility of display mode selection, while ensuring that quality control standards of the control authority are met, resulting in increased quality in content presentation. (Sanders, [0092])
Consider Claim 18:
Sanders discloses the control method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising identifying the input frame rate of the video based on metadata of the received video. (Sanders, [0092], “Further, quality control may be implemented by allowing the addition or removal of supported display modes over those indicated as supportable by a particular electronic display. For example, manufacturer data and/or control authority data may provide supplemental information related to supported display modes that may dynamically alter selectable display modes of the content streaming device. This may result in increased flexibility of display mode selection, while ensuring that quality control standards of the control authority are met, resulting in increased quality in content presentation.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in a current or previous PTO-892. The prior art cited in a current or previous PTO-892 reads upon the applicants claims in part, in whole and/or gives a general reference to the knowledge and skill of persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant, when responding to this Office action, should consider not only the cited references applied in the rejection but also any additional references made of record.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests support be shown for any new or amended claims. More precisely, indicate support for any newly added language or amendments by specifying page, line numbers, and/or figure(s). This will assist The Office in compact prosecution of this application. The Office has cited particular columns, paragraphs, and/or line numbers in the applied rejection of the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within each claim, however other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider the cited reference(s) in its entirety and not only the cited portions as other sections of the reference may expand on the teachings of the cited portion(s).
Applicant Representatives are reminded of CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) which states “A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.” When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a two month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c) ).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J JANSEN II whose telephone number is (571)272-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Normally Available Monday-Friday 9am-4pm EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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.
/Michael J Jansen II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights