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 04/27//2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this specific case applicant should note that Earle was simply brought in to teach an input and output port and displaying a list of applications providing content through the Internet in a home UI (figure 3, col. 11, lines 33-39, col. 6, line 61 to col. 7 line 11). All other limitations are taught by VanSickel as cited below.
Applicant argues that VanSickel only teaches the identification information to be the EPG (402), progress bar (404) or program (406), but does not teach an image of the broadcasting content. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. VanSickel teaches in addition to the EPG, progress bar and program (which continues playing on the background and therefore it will always be the latest image of the program) the duration of the program, the title, the percentage completed, the broadcasting station, the summary of the program etc. (figure 4a), Clearly meeting the claim language.
Applicant argues that an EPG is not a home UI. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Any visual that let the user interact with the display is a home UI, this is standard in the art, especially in television, an EPG is considered a home UI, anybody skill in the art will know.
Although, the Han reference (US 2013/0191867) is not used in this application the examiner believes that by displaying an image of multiple programs as identification information, it also meets the claim limitation of displaying an image of the most recent viewed channel. The fact that Han shows more information does not mean that it does not meet the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the VanSickel et al., US 12,219,218 in view of Earle, US 8,869,207.
Regarding claim 1, VanSickel discloses a display device comprising: a display; a memory storing one or more instructions; an interface configured to connect an external device with the display device, the external device providing broadcasting content; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute one or more instructions stored in the memory (figures 1, 3 and 5), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
based on reception of a first user input, display, on the display, the broadcasting content received from the external device connected to the display device through the input and output interface (figure 2, col. 5, lines 31-37), and
in response to receiving a second user input corresponding to a home user interface (UI) button of a remote controller while displaying the broadcasting content, display a list of a plurality of pieces of content (col. 5, lines 38-58), wherein the list of the plurality of pieces of content includes identification information of a channel of the broadcasting content that is most recently displayed on the display before the home UI is displayed (figures 4a-4b; col. 3, lines 46 to col. 4, line 2; col. 8, line 29 to col. 9, line 59), wherein the identification information of the channel comprises an image of the broadcasting content that is most recently displayed on the display before the home UI is displayed, the image of the broadcasting content being displayed in the list of the plurality of pieces of content (figures 4a-4b; col. 3, lines 46 to col. 4, line 2; col. 8, line 29 to col. 9, line 59).
VanSickel is silent about an input and output port and displaying a list of applications providing content through the Internet in a home UI.
In an analogous art, Earle discloses an input and output port and displaying a list of applications providing content through the Internet in a home UI (figure 3, col. 11, lines 33-39, col. 6, line 61 to col. 7 line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify VanSickel’s device with the teachings of Earle. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to connect to the device and to identify the source in order to provide a secure interface for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 11 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the input and output port comprises at least one of a high-definition multimedia interface port (HDMI), a component jack, a personal computer (PC) port, and a universal serial bus (USB) port (Earle figures 1 and 6, col. 4, lines 11-17; col. 11, lines 33-39)
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the display device to: based on receiving a third user input for selecting the identification information of the channel in the home UI, display, on an entire screen, the broadcasting content of the channel corresponding to the selected identification information of the channel (Earle col. 7, lines 4-26).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the external device comprises a set-top box (VanSickel col. 3, lines 29-46; Earle col. 4, lines 26-50; col. 5, lines 3-19).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, and wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the display device to display the image of the broadcasting content with a higher priority than images corresponding to other content items in the list of the plurality of pieces of content (highlighted image or bigger image) (VanSickel figure 4a-4b; Earle figure 3).
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the display device to display, on the image of the broadcasting content, an image or text indicating that the image of the broadcasting content represents the channel of the broadcasting content that is most recently displayed on an entire screen of the display device before the home UI is displayed (VanSickel figure 4a-4b; Earle figure 3).
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, further comprising: communication circuitry, wherein the list of applications receive content from a content server through the communication circuitry (VanSickel figure 1; Earle figure 1).
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the identification information of the channel displayed on the home UI is identification information of the broadcasting content output prior to the display of the home UI (VanSickel figure 4a-4b; Earle figure 3).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of content comprises a plurality of broadcasting content (VanSickel figure 4a-4b; Earle figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the identification information of the channel comprises the image of the broadcasting content that is most recently displayed on the display before the home UI is displayed and is terminated (VanSickel figures 4a-4b; col. 6, lines 21-36, col. 9, lines 10-30; Earle figure 3, col. 11, lines 33-39, col. 6, line 31-60).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the VanSickel in view of Earle in view of Marioka, US 20070074255.
Regarding claim 10, VanSickel and Earle disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the display device to: display, on the display, broadcasting content received through a tuner of the display device, and store identification information of a channel of the broadcasting content received from the tuner, and based on receiving the second user input corresponding to the home UI button of the remote controller, display a home UI comprising the identification information of the channel of the broadcasting content received through the tuner (VanSickel col. 5, lines 4-30).
VanSickel and Earle are silent about storing identification information of the tuner.
In an analogous art, Marioka discloses storing identification information of the tuner (figure 3, col. 11, lines 33-39, col. 6, line 61 to col. 7 line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify VanSickel and Earle’s device with the teachings of Marioka. The motivation would have been to properly identified the source of data for the benefit of preventing piracy.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights