DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a burner” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims 1 and 5. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 1-2, 5, 12, and 19, each of the claims uses the uncommon phrasing “basing on”, correct the phrasing to ‘based on’ as is consistent with the common language used elsewhere in the claims.
As to claim 9, in the final line of the claim, the limitation “the equipment databasing on” appears to be a typographical error, and should be correct with space after data, followed by the phrase ‘based on’.
As to claim 18, correct the phrase “as a second address” to ‘at a second address’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the term “a burner” in line 2 of the claim is not defined in the claim or the Specification, nor is the term considered common to the art, therefore the scope of the term “a burner”, which also appears in claim 5, cannot be determined which renders the claims indefinite; claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 11, 13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0103319), hereinafter referred to as Li, in view of Kado et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0195397), hereinafter referred to as Kado.
Referring to claim 11, Li discloses a display, comprising: a display module (display screen…OSD controller 106 displays an operation menu on the screen, [0004]); a storage device storing first font data and second font data (stores data of the operating screen to the SRAM 404, as mentioned in step 501, wherein the data includes a font table, an icon table and a color lookup table (CLUT), [0021]); and a scalar integrated circuit (fig. 4, 400) electrically connected to the display module and the storage device, wherein the scalar integrated circuit loads the first font data and the second font data from the storage device (parameter setting of the registers, font display table, font table, icon table and CLUT are stored before the OSD controller 406 is active…if the operating screen needs to be updated, the upload controller 410 directly stores the updated data to the SRAM 404…upload controller 410 updates a font or an icon during the non-displaying period of the monitor, [0021-0022]), displays an On Screen Display (OSD) menu on the display module according to the first font data (OSD controller 106 displays an operation menu on the screen by reading the data stored, [0004]),
While Li teaches presenting an identifier in the OSD menu according to the second font data (using icons in the operating screen, [0006]), Li does not appear to explicitly disclose the identifier is generated based on a network address, and the network address is configured to access equipment data of the display.
However, Kado discloses the identifier is generated based on a network address (the QR code including the URL information is generated and displayed to display the web content, [0050]), and the network address is configured to access equipment data of the display (a content server 120 that stores web content related to the image processing device…image processing device 100 can acquire web content such as an instruction manual, FAQ, or the like of the image processing device 100 from the content server 120 via the Internet 110, [0022-0023]).
Li and Kado are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, managing device operating parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Li and Kado before him or her, to modify the display system of Li to include the web content retrieval technique taught by Kado because Li demonstrates that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;" in accesses external information; Kado demonstrates that the prior art contained a "comparable" device (method, or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, the generation, display, and use of information for access external content from a network connection; one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have been a predictable use of display and network information to access relevant information.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations (see MPEP 2143.I.C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li and Kado to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 13, the combination of Li in view of Kado discloses the equipment data comprises: at least one of a driver, a calibration report, a manual (Kado: acquire web content such as an instruction manual, FAQ, or the like, [0023]), a quick start guide, and an instructional video. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
As to claim 16, the combination of Li in view of Kado discloses the identifier is a QR code (Kado: the QR code including the URL information is generated and displayed to display the web content, [0050]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
As to claim 19, the combination of Li in view of Kado discloses the network address is obtained via scanning the identifier by a communication device, and the equipment data is obtained basing on the network address (Kado: a smartphone reads a QR code and a display device connected to a mobile terminal displays corresponding web content, [0024]; QR code including the URL information, [0050]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
As to claim 20, the combination of Li in view of Kado discloses the equipment data is stored on a cloud server (Kado: content server 120 stores various kinds of web content…content server 120 may be…a virtual machine (a cloud service), [0025]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kado, as applied to claims 11, 13, 16, and 19-20 above, further in view of Safaee-Rad et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0056911), hereinafter referred to as Safaee.
As to claim 14, the combination of Li in view of Kado does not appear to explicitly disclose the calibration report is color calibration data generated during a production line stage of a display production process, where a color calibration is performed on the display to generate the color calibration data.
However, Safaee discloses the calibration report is color calibration data generated during a production line stage of a display production process, where a color calibration is performed on the display to generate the color calibration data (during manufacturing of device 100, to obtain display data such as, tone correction LUT 114 and color correction matrices 116, which may be stored in memory 104, and retrieved by processor 102. Processor 102 may utilize the calibration data, [0046]).
Li, Kado, and Safaee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, managing device operating parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Li, Kado, and Safaee before him or her, to modify the display system of Li in view of Kado to include the color calibration of Safaee because calibration of the display device would improve the accuracy of the display.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the display performance (Safaee: [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Kado, and Safaee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 15, the combination of Li, Kado, and Safaee discloses the production line stage is entered after the first font data is recorded to the storage device of the display (Safaee: during manufacturing of device 100, to obtain display data such as, tone correction LUT 114 and color correction matrices 116, which may be stored in memory 104, and retrieved by processor 102. Processor 102 may utilize the calibration data, [0046]). The suggestion/motivation to combine remains as indicated above.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kado, as applied to claims 11, 13, 16, and 19-20 above, further in view of Wu et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0219439), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
As to claim 17, while Li discloses the first font data is recorded and stored at a first address of the storage device (stores data of the operating screen to the SRAM 404, as mentioned in step 501, wherein the data includes a font table, an icon table and a color lookup table (CLUT), [0021]; NOTE: though Li does not explicitly state “at a first address”, the memory configurations anticipated by Li (e.g., SRAM) are well known to use address lines), Li does not appear to explicitly disclose the data stored as firmware or as a part of the firmware.
However, Wu teaches the data stored as firmware or as a part of the firmware (storage units such as RAM, flash memory, EEPROM, and/or ROM, which may store, for example, firmware and display fonts; [0038]).
Li, Kado, and Wu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, managing device operating parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Li, Kado, and Safaee before him or her, to modify the display system of Li in view of Kado to include firmware storage of Wu for use in controlling of display data because firmware storage is well known in the art, and as demonstrated by the prior art of Li, Kado, and Safaee included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, that is the firmware and font data still provide the same storage and operational function to the display system; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, as firmware is a well-established concept in computing operations.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Kado, and Wu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 18, Li discloses the second font data is stored as a second address to the storage device, the second address is different from the first address, and the storage device is a flash memory (The flash memory 310 is used to store the data of the operating screen, which is moved from the microprocessor 302 to the SRAM 304, [0006]; stores data of the operating screen to the SRAM 404, as mentioned in step 501, wherein the data includes a font table, an icon table and a color lookup table (CLUT), [0021]; NOTE: though Li does not explicitly state at “a second address…different from the first address”, the memory configurations anticipated by Li (e.g., SRAM) are well known to use physical address based storage and retrieval, as well, the addresses being different is implied in Li teaching the storage of two separate data components and therefore the physical addresses would be required to be different).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The US Patent No. 10,366,674 of Levin et al. and the US Pub. No. 2007/0052735) of Chou et al. are pertinent to display calibration
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, 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 the 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 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).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184