DETAILED ACTION
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 amendment and arguments, towards independent claim 1, with respect to the previous 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive [Reply, filed 07/28/2026, page 9]. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, towards independent claim 10, with respect to the previous 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive [Reply, filed 07/28/2026, page 14]. The 103 rejection of claims 10-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/28/2026, towards independent claims 1 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A1) The argument, by the applicants, states “Loveridge's mechanism focuses on optimizing transmission parameters for individual data streams rather than the selection of distinct, discrete audio-video signal sources based on a switch-generated control signal to drive a display interface. Consequently, there is no teaching or suggestion in Loveridge of a switch-based control mechanism that dictates the selection between the first audio-video signal and the second audio-video signal for output to a display interface as claimed [Reply; pages 12-13].
Response by the examiner: The claim language states “according to a control signal transmitted by a switch”. The terminology of “according to” is very broad and not equivalent to “drive” or “dictate”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “drive”, “dictate”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As shown in Loveridge, the video source (202) has analog and digital video sources. The video source selects between the analog or the digital video sources. If the signal is analog, it will be converted to digital, within the video source [Loveridge; figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0025-0027]. The decision between the two sources are further shown in figure 3 of Loveridge. Therefore, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Loveridge reads upon the claim limitation, in independent claim 1, of “wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to transmit the first audio-video signal or the second audio-video signal to the output interface controller according to a control signal transmitted by a switch connected to the processor, such that the at least one display device displays an image corresponding to the first audio-video signal or the second audio-video signal”, shown in the 103 rejection (below).
A2) The argument, by the applicants, states “Blankenburg does not disclose, nor does it suggest, a network-based instruction architecture for cross-device parameter control” [Reply; page 15-16].
Response by the examiner: The primary reference, Benson, discloses the network interface controller for network based instructions [Benson; fig 2; col 4, lines 42-57] 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). The Benson reference does not disclose translating the operating instruction into a communication protocol message. The secondary reference, Blankenburg, is cited to disclose translating an operation instruction to a protocol message [ie. signal converted into a protocol packet ("message"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 4, and 5; para 0035-0036]. Also, the claim language does not clearly show a “network-based instruction architecture”, as argued. Therefore, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Thai discloses “translate the operation instruction into a first communication protocol message”, shown in the 103 rejection (below).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson [USPAT 11,726,525] in view of Blankenburg et al. ("Blankenburg") [PGPUB 2018/0034943] and Loveridge et al. ("Loveridge") [PGPUB 2009/0027401].
Regarding claim 1, the Benson reference discloses a docking station, comprising: a network interface controller configured to receive an operation instruction from an external control device [Benson; figures 1 and 2; column 3, lines 1-33];
a processor connected to the network interface controller to receive the operation instruction [Benson; fig 2; col 4, lines 42-57];
an output interface controller connected to the processor [ie. using one of the controllers with the hub to output to computing device; Benson; fig 2; col 3, lines 13-33];
a first input interface controller configured to receive a first audio-video signal from a first electronic device connected to the first input interface controller; and a second input interface controller configured to receive a second audio-video signal from a second electronic device connected to the second input interface controller [Benson; figure 2; col 1, lines 5-16 and col 3, lines 13-33];
wherein the processor is configured to perform the following operations according to operation instruction [Benson; fig 3 and 4; col. 2, lines 23-50 and col 4, line 58 - col 5, line 30].
The Benson reference discloses operating instructions to update firmware of the docking station but does not specifically disclose correspondingly translate the operation instruction into a first communication protocol message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Blankenburg reference discloses translate the operation instruction into a first communication protocol message [ie. signal converted into a protocol packet ("message"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 4, and 5; para 0035-0036]. The Benson and Blankenburg references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of a converting an operation signal into a protocol message, taught by Blankenburg, into the system, taught by Benson. The motivation for doing so would have been to control different devices using different protocols [Blankenburg; para 0001].
The Benson reference does not specifically disclose “transmitting the first communication protocol message to the output interface controller, such that the output interface controller converts the first communication protocol message into a display setting instruction and transmits the display setting instruction to at least one display device connected to the output interface controller so as to adjust at least one display parameter of the at least one display device”.
However, for compact prosecution, the Blankenburg reference discloses the alternative claim language of "transmitting the first communication protocol message to the output interface controller, such that the output interface controller converts the first communication protocol message into a display setting instruction and transmits the display setting instruction to at least one display device connected to the output interface controller so as to adjust at least one display parameter of the at least one display device" [ie. first protocol packet ("message") is converted into a second protocol packet ("display setting instruction") and sent to TV ("display device") to change brightness ("adjust at least one display parameter"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064- 0065]. The Benson and Blankenburg references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of converting a display parameter message, taught by Blankenburg, into the system, taught by Benson. The motivation for doing so would have been to control different parameters of a device using a different protocol [Blankenburg; para 0001].
The combination of Benson-Blankenburg does not specifically disclose the processor is further configured to determine whether to transmit the first audio-video signal or the second audio-video signal to the output interface controller according to a control signal transmitted by a switch connected to the processor, such that the at least one display device displays an image corresponding to the first audio-video signal or the second audio-video signal
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Loveridge reference discloses the processor is further configured to determine whether to transmit the first audio -video signal or the second audio-video signal to the output interface controller according to a control signal transmitted by a switch connected to the processor, such that the at least one display device displays an image corresponding to the first audio-video signal or the second audio-video signal [Loveridge; fig 1 and 5; para 0025-0027, 0033, and 0049]. The Benson-Blankenburg and Loveridge references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of a switch between a first signal and a second signal, taught by Loveridge, into the system, taught by Benson-Blankenburg. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to display one of the two audio-video signals.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Loveridge further discloses the external control device is a computer, a server or a smart phone, wherein a transmission interface between the external control device and the network interface controller is a wireless communication interface, an Ethernet interface, a serial interface, a USB interface or an audio-video transmission line interface, wherein the network interface controller transmits the first communication protocol message to the processor in compliance with a communication interface [ie. "in compliance with a communication interface" can be broadly read "as long as the hub can receive the communication signal"; Benson; col 2, lines 51-58, col 3, lines 1-12, and col 4, lines 7-27] [Blankenburg; para 0015-0016, 0038, and 0078].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Loveridge further discloses the communication interface is an inter-integrated circuit (12C) protocol [Benson; col 4, lines 7-27].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Loveridge further discloses the communication interface is auxiliary (AUX) interface, Display Data Channel/Command Interface (DOC/Cl), Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART), Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI), Power Delivery Configuration Channel (PD CC), CAN bus, Modbus protocol, Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) protocol, or USB interface [Benson; col 3, lines 21-33 and col 4, lines 7-27] [Blankenburg; para 0038-0039].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Loveridge further discloses the network interface controller is further configured to receive a reading instruction from the external control device and correspondingly translate the reading instruction into a second communication protocol message, wherein the processor is configured to perform the following operations according to the second communication protocol message [Benson; col 5, lines 1-14 and 31-67] [Blankenburg; fig 1, 4, and 5; para 0035-0036]; transmitting, by the processor, the second communication protocol message to the output interface controller, such that the output interface controller converts the second communication protocol message into a display reading instruction and transmits the display reading instruction to the at least one display device so as to read the at least one display parameter of the at least one display device from the at least one display device [with the use of "or'', this is an alternate claim limitation; "so as to" is intended use of the instructions; ie. instructions to see if computing device 250 is connected to hub ("display parameter''); Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [ie. in order to change volume/channel/brightness, the docking station must know current status of the display ("read display parameters"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg further discloses the output interface controller transmits the display setting instruction to the at least one display device to adjust the at least one display parameter of the at least one display device [Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065] but does not specifically disclose "in compliance with Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) Monitor Control Command Set (MCCS) standard or CEC protocol". However, in the same field of endeavor, the Loveridge reference discloses displaying an image in compliance with Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) Monitor Control Command Set (MCCS) standard or CEC protocol [Loveridge; para 0032 and 0037]. The Benson-Blankenburg and Loveridge references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of VESA and MCCS, taught by Loveridge, into the system, taught by Benson-Blankenburg. The motivation for doing so would have been to be in compliance with a standard.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg further discloses the output interface controller transmits the display reading instruction to the at least one display device to read the at least one display parameter of the at least one display device [Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065] but does not specifically disclose "in compliance with VESA MCCS standard". However, in the same field of endeavor, the Loveridge reference discloses displaying an image in compliance with VESA MCCS standard [Loveridge; para 0032 and 0037]. The Benson-Blankenburg and Loveridge references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of VESA and MCCS, taught by Loveridge, into the system, taught by Benson-Blankenburg. The motivation for doing so would have been to be in compliance with a standard.
Claims 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson [USPAT 11,726,525] in view of Blankenburg et al. ("Blankenburg") [PGPUB 2018/0034943] and Thai et al. ("Thai") [PGPUB 2025/0291743].
Regarding claim 14, the Benson reference discloses a device comprising: a network interface controller configured to receive an operation instruction from an external control device [Benson; figures 1 and 2; column 3, lines 1-33]; a processor connected to the network interface controller to receive the operation instruction [Benson; fig 2; col 4, lines 42-57]; and output interface controller connected to the processor [ie. using one of the controllers with the hub to output to computing device; Benson; fig 2; col 3, lines 13-33].
The Benson reference does not specifically disclose "correspondingly translate the operation instruction into a first communication protocol message".
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Blankenburg reference discloses correspondingly translate the operation instruction into a first communication protocol message [ie. signal converted into a protocol packet ("message"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 4, and 5; para 0035-0036]. The Benson and Blankenburg references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of a converting an operation signal into a protocol message, taught by Blankenburg, into the system, taught by Benson. The motivation for doing so would have been to control different devices using different protocols [Blankenburg; para 0001 ].
The Benson reference does not specifically disclose "the processor is configured to transmit the first communication protocol message to the display and output interface controller, such that the output interface controller converts the first communication protocol message into a display setting instruction and transmits the display setting instruction to an external display device connected to the output interface controller so as to adjust at least one display parameter of the external display device".
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Blankenburg reference discloses the processor is configured to transmit the first communication protocol message to the display and output interface controller, such that the output interface controller converts the first communication protocol message into a display setting instruction and transmits the display setting instruction to an external display device connected to the output interface controller so as to adjust at least one display parameter of the external display device [ie. first protocol packet ("message") is converted into a second protocol packet ("display setting instruction") and sent to TV ("display device") to change brightness ("adjust at least one display parameter"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065]. The Benson and Blankenburg references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of converting a display parameter message, taught by Blankenburg, into the system, taught by Benson. The motivation for doing so would have been to control different parameters of a device using a different protocol [Blankenburg; para 0001 ].
The combination of Benson-Blankenburg discloses a docking station and one display device ("external display device") but does not specifically disclose a display device with the docking station ("a display device") and a second display device ("external display device"). However, in the same field of endeavor, the Thai reference discloses one of the multiple display devices with the docking station would be viewed as the "display device" by the host computer, while another display device is "external display device" [Thai; fig 1 A and 1 B; para 0011-0013]. The Benson-Blankenburg and Thai references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of multiple display devices, taught by Thai, into the system, taught by Benson-Blankenburg. The motivation for doing so would have been to control multiple devices from one docking station/display.
Regarding claim 15, the combination Benson-Blankenburg-Thai further discloses the external control device is a computer, a server or a smart phone, wherein a transmission interface between the external control device and the network interface controller is wireless communication interface, Ethernet interface, serial interface, USB interface or audio-video transmission line interface, wherein the network interface controller transmits the first communication protocol message to the processor in compliance with an inter-integrated circuit (12C) protocol [ie. "in compliance with a communication interface" can be broadly read "as long as the hub can receive the communication signal"; Benson; col 2, lines 51-58, col 3, lines 1-12, and col 4, lines 7-27] [Blankenburg; para 0015-0016, 0038, and 0078] [Thai; abstract].
Regarding claim 17, the combination Benson-Blankenburg-Thai further discloses receive a reading instruction from the external control device and correspondingly translate the reading instruction into a second communication protocol message, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the second communication protocol message to the display and output interface controller, such that the display and output interface controller converts the second communication protocol message into a display reading instruction and transmits the display reading instruction to the external display device so as to read the at least one display parameter of the external display device from the external display device [so as to" is intended use of the instructions; ie. instructions to see if computing device 250 is connected to hub ("display parameter"); Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [ie. in order to change volume/channel/brightness, the docking station must know current status of the display ("read display parameters"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065] [Thai; para 0013-0014].
Regarding claim 19, the combination Benson-Blankenburg-Thai further discloses the first communication protocol message transmitted to the display and output interface controller is further used to adjust at least one display parameter of the display device [Benson; col 1, lines 37-57] [Blankenburg; para 0017-0018] [Thai; para 0012-0013].
Regarding claim 20, the combination Benson-Blankenburg-Thai further discloses read at least one display parameter of the display device according to the second communication protocol message [Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [ie. in order to change volume/channel/brightness, the docking station must know current status of the display ("read display parameters"); Blankenburg; fig 1, 5, and 8; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065] [Thai; para 0013-0014].
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson-Blankenburg-Thai as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Loveridge et al. ("Loveridge") [PGPUB 2009/0027401].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg-Thai further discloses the display and output interface controller transmits the display setting instruction to the external display device to adjust the at least one display parameter of the external display device [Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [Blankenburg; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065] [Thai; para 0011-0013] but does not specifically disclose "in compliance with VESA MCCS standard or CEC protocol". However, in the same field of endeavor, the Loveridge reference discloses displaying an image in compliance with VESA MCCS standard or CEC protocol [Loveridge; para 0032 and 0037]. The Benson-Blankenburg-Thai and Loveridge references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of VESA and MCCS, taught by Loveridge, into the system, taught by Benson-Blankenburg-Thai. The motivation for doing so would have been to be in compliance with a standard.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Benson-Blankenburg further discloses the display and output interface controller transmits the display reading instruction to the external display device to read the at least one display parameter of the external display device [Benson; col 4, lines 59-67] [Blankenburg; para 0016-0020, 0042, and 0064-0065] [Thai; para 0011-0013] but does not specifically disclose "in compliance with VESA MCCS standard". However, in the same field of endeavor, the Loveridge reference discloses displaying an image in compliance with VESA MCCS standard [Loveridge; para 0032 and 0037]. The Benson-Blankenburg-Thai and Loveridge references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to control a display device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of VESA and MCCS, taught by Loveridge, into the system, taught by Benson-Blankenburg-Thai. The motivation for doing so would have been to be in compliance with a standard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are allowed, based on amendments and arguments by the applicants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gasparakis et al. [USPAT 10,361,914] describes control functions over a computer network.
Chhabra et al. [USPAT 10,142,167] describes firmware updates for smart sensor networks.
Zhang [USPAT 7,584,306] describes converting network packets into update commands for an OSD.
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 JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights