Response to an Amendment
This office action is a response to a communication made on 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant: Applicant's arguments, see remarks on page 6-9, filed 10/16/2025, applicant argues that “None of the references of record, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest the subject matter recited in the pending claims. For example, claim 1 recites: recording display output and audio output generated by the application; modifying, in response to a request from the application, the recording of output generated by the application; replaying content of the recording in response to determining that the application has priority.
Examiner: Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kondo teaches recording display output and audio output generated by the application because Fig.1 step 12, ¶0035, ¶0037 and ¶0042, teaches the memory stores a rule definition including: an arbitration policy for defining basic arbitration when one of contents is assigned to an area or a zone… the memory stores rule definitions… content output (i.e. recording output) includes both the concept of content display and audio output, and output content includes the concept of both displayed content and audio output content…Applications A to C are stored in the display control device 10 in advance. When a content display request for a predetermined area of one or more display devices 6 to 8 is generated, each of the applications A to C interrupts and outputs an application request indicating the display device as the display target device, an area, and a content to the control unit 11. [Note: examiner interpreted, when content is captured and stored or assigned to area or zone for later use, people often refer to that content output as recording output].
Kondo also teaches replaying content of the recording in response to determining that the application has priority because ¶0036, ¶0157 and ¶0181 teaches the output of the contents can be switched (i.e. replaying) according to the output order (i.e. determining the priority) of the contents… switching of contents is performed on the application side… Since the display switching trigger corresponds to the advance direction, the current display position is switched to the next tab content, and “the tab content A” is switched to “the tab content B”. “The display order: the first is the tab content A, the second is the tab content B, and the third is the tab content C” and “the current display position: the tab content B” are stored. The display result of the tab area is switched from “the tab content A” to “the tab content B”.
However, Kondo remain silent on modifying, in response to a request from the application, the recording of output generated by the application.
Shimizu teaches modifying, in response to a request from the application, the recording of output generated by the application because ¶0062, teaches an adjustment item setting unit 21 a and an adjustment item reflecting unit 21 b that are controlled by the control unit (CPU) 21 on the basis of programs recorded in the ROM of the memory unit 23. The adjustment item setting unit 21 a has a function of setting an adjustment item corresponding to a program name acquired (i.e. in response to request) by the program information acquisition unit 5 or the like on the adjustment item setting file 23 a.
In the same field of endeavor, Simizu ¶0097 teaches the recording display output as display of the recorded content… When a program [ABCD] digitally recorded (TS) and stored in a HDD through iLINK or the like is played back with a recorder and watched on a screen 17 of a television X, the program information can be acquired at the time of playback.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2023/0418539), hereinafter “Kondo” in view of Shimizu (US 2013/0340019).
With respect to claim 1, Kondo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
determining that an application has lost priority while the application is transmitting output (¶0036, ¶0157, and ¶0185, teaches the output of the contents can be switched according to the output order (i.e. priority) of the contents…switching of contents is performed on the application side, it is necessary to output OFF and ON of the APP request… “the tab content C” is at the lowest level, “the tab content C” is switched to “the tab content A” at the highest level, wherein tab content C lost priority when application is transmitting output);
assigning standby status to the application (¶0042 and ¶0088, teaches Applications A to C are stored in the display control device 10 in advance…the content state is either active/inactive (i.e. standby) or displayed);
recording display output and audio output generated by the application (Fig.1 step 12, ¶0037 and ¶0042, teaches the memory stores rule definitions… content output (i.e. recording output) includes both the concept of content display and audio output, and output content includes the concept of both displayed content and audio output content…Applications A to C are stored in the display control device 10 in advance. When a content display request for a predetermined area of one or more display devices 6 to 8 is generated, each of the applications A to C interrupts and outputs an application request indicating the display device as the display target device, an area, and a content to the control unit 11.);
replaying content of the recording in response to determining that the application has priority (¶0036, and ¶0157 teaches the output of the contents can be switched (i.e. replaying) according to the output order (i.e. determining the priority) of the contents… switching of contents is performed on the application side).
However, Kondo remain silent on modifying, in response to a request from the application, the recording of output generated by the application;
Shimizu discloses modifying, in response to a request from the application, the recording of output generated by the application (¶0062, teaches an adjustment item setting unit 21 a and an adjustment item reflecting unit 21 b that are controlled by the control unit (CPU) 21 on the basis of programs recorded in the ROM of the memory unit 23. The adjustment item setting unit 21 a has a function of setting an adjustment item corresponding to a program name acquired (i.e. in response to request) by the program information acquisition unit 5 or the like on the adjustment item setting file 23 a);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s system with modifying, in response to a request from the application, the recording of output generated by the application of Shimizu, in order to frames may be recorded to manage priority switching efficiently (Shimizu).
For claim 8, it is a method claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
For claim 15, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Kondo in view of Shimizu discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise determining whether the application has priority in response to deactivation of output transmission (Kondo, ¶0088, ¶0133, ¶0185, teaches the content state is either active/inactive (i.e. standby or deactivation) or displayed (i.e. output transmission)…an APP request is made, and areas to be arbitrated are selected in descending order of area priority…“the tab content C” is at the lowest level, “the tab content C” is switched to “the tab content A” at the highest level, wherein content C is deactivated and content A has the priority), .
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Kondo in view of Shimizu discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the recording to the application (Kondo, ¶0046, teaches when an APP request is output from an application, the content of another application is already being displayed, i.e., the APP requests from two different applications are in active at the same time, Shimizu, ¶0132, teaches the playback device may be provided to a playback function of a personal computer or the like or may be provided in a recording/playback device).
Claim(s) 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Shimizu, and further in view of Panchaksharaiah et al. (US 2020/0413126 A1), hereinafter “Panchaksharaiah”.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Kondo in view of Shimizu discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, however, Kondo in view of Shimizu remain silent on wherein the modifying includes deleting all but a first second of the recording.
Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the modifying includes deleting all but a first second of the recording (¶0025, ¶0048, and ¶0051 teaches change (i.e. modify) a deletion classifier associated with a recorded media asset… initial deletion classifier 156 and final deletion classifier 158 may be “a user has consumed a portion of recorded media asset that is not an entirety of the recorded media asset,” “O.K. to Delete” and “Do Not Delete” respectively, wherein O.K. to delete is deleting all and do not delete is first second of the recording… recorded media assets associated with “Do Not Delete” delete classifier with one type of indicator (e.g., a red dot alongside the recorded media assets) and identifiers corresponding to recorded media assets associated with “O.K. to Delete” delete classifier with another type of indicator (e.g., a yellow dot alongside the recorded media assets).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s in view of Shimizu’s adjusting system with deleting all but a first second of the recording of Panchaksharaiah, in order to retain minimal necessary data, enhance privacy and compliance and optimize storage and resource usage (Panchaksharaiah).
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, Kondo in view of Shimizu, and further in view of Panchaksharaiah discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the deleting is in response to assigning inactive status to the application (Kondo, ¶0088, teaches the content state is either active/inactive (i.e. standby or deactivation) or displayed (i.e. output transmission), Panchaksharaiah,¶0051, teaches delete recorded media assets that are associated with a specific deletion classifier (e.g., “Recommended to Delete”) ).
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Kondo in view Shimizu discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, Shimizu, ¶0015, teaches automatic adjustment is performed such that the correspondence is maintained even when channel switching that involves a change of a program occurs. However, Kondo in view of Shimizu remain silent on wherein the modifying includes maintaining only a latest 5 seconds of the recording.
Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the modifying includes maintaining only a latest 5 seconds of the recording (¶0017, teaches media asset associated with the given recorded media asset being scheduled to be available (i.e. maintain) within some pre-defined time period (i.e. latest 5 seconds)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s in view of Shimizu’s adjusting system with maintaining only a latest 5 seconds of the recording of Panchaksharaiah, in order to ensure efficient memory and storage usage (Panchaksharaiah).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Kondo in view of Shimizu discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, however, Kondo in view of Shimizu remain silent on wherein the modifying includes deleting all content of the recording.
Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the modifying includes deleting all content of the recording (¶0051, delete recorded media assets that are associated with a specific deletion classifier (e.g., “Recommended to Delete”)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s in view of Shimizu’s system with modifying includes deleting all content of the recording of Panchaksharaiah, in order to optimize storage and system resources (Panchaksharaiah).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GOLAM MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)270-0385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8.00-5.00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 5712703037. 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.
/G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2458
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights