Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/713,076

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 23, 2024
Examiner
ZENATI, AMAL S
Art Unit
2693
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Lg Electronics INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
618 granted / 776 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
806
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
67.6%
+27.6% vs TC avg
§102
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pichaimurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2025/0047326 A1; hereinafter Pichaimurthy) in view of Martinez et al (Pub. No.: US 2017/0048490 A1; hereinafter Martinez) Consider claims 1, and 8, Pichaimurthy clearly shows and discloses a method and a display device comprising: a speaker; a display configured to display a first video and a second video (Media device 300 displays a video conference call on display 302. Display 302 may be divided into sections for each other conference participant. For example, participant John is displayed in portion 304 and participant Mary is displayed in portion 306) (paragraphs: 0033 and fig. 3); and a controller configured to, when the first video is focused from among the first video and the second video, output a first voice corresponding to the first video through the speaker (If multiple voices are detected in an audio stream for John, dialog box 308 may be displayed. Dialog box 308 offers the user of media device 300 an option to select which voice in the audio stream from John the user of media device 300 wants to hear) (paragraph: 0033 and fig. 3, label 308, first video for label 304 and abstract); however, Pichaimurthy does not specifically disclose convert a second voice corresponding to an unfocused second video into text, and display the converted text on the second video. In the same field of endeavor, Martinez clearly specifically teaches to convert a second voice corresponding to an unfocused second video into text, and display the converted text on the second video (upon receiving input to mute the videoconference from a first participant of the videoconference converts detected speech of a number of participants of the videoconference into text and displays the text on a monitor of the computing device) (abstract, paragraphs: 0043 -0046; and figs. 3, labels: 305, 315-325). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Martinez into teaching of Pichaimurthy for the purpose of converting the speech of the participants of the videoconference into text. This text is then displayed on the monitor of the computing device. Consider claims 2, and 9, Pichaimurthy and Martinez clearly show the method and the display device, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the first video is focused when the controller receives a command to select the first video from a remote control device (Pichaimurthy: paragraphs: 0033 and fig. 3, label: 308). Consider claims 3, and 10, Pichaimurthy and Martinez clearly show the method and the display device, wherein the controller is configured to output a notification indicating that a keyword is included when the text includes a preset keyword (Pichaimurthy: paragraphs: 0033 and fig. 3, label: 308). Consider claim 4, Pichaimurthy and Martinez clearly show the method and the display device, further comprising: a network interface configured to communicate with a first counterpart device and a second counterpart device (Pichaimurthy: paragraphs: 0041-0044 and fig. 6). Consider claims 5, and 11, Pichaimurthy and Martinez clearly show the method and the display device, wherein the focused first video is a first conference video received from the first counterpart device, and the unfocused second video is a second conference video received from the second counterpart device (Martinez: paragraphs: 0043 -0046; and figs. 3, labels: 305, 315-325). Consider claims 6, and 12, Pichaimurthy and Martinez clearly show the method and the display device, wherein the controller is configured to receive a spoken voice uttered by a user from a remote control device and transmit the received spoken voice to the first counterpart device (Martinez: paragraphs: 0043 -0046; and figs. 3, labels: 305, 315-325). Consider claims 7, and 13, Pichaimurthy and Martinez clearly show the method and the display device, further comprising: a network interface configured to communicate with a first external device; and an external device input interface connected to a second external device, wherein the focused first video is a conference video received from the first external device vis the network interface, and the unfocused second video is an external input video received from the second external device via the external device input interface (Martinez: paragraphs: 0043 -0046; and figs. 3, labels: 305, 315-325). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 – 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571- 272- 7488. 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). /AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602926
ATTENTION MONITORING IN A VIDEO CONFERENCING SESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603794
COMPUTER VISION DRIVEN ACTIONS BASED ON USER AVAILABILITY DURING VIDEO CONFERENCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598269
Generating Composite Presentation Content in Video Conferences
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581036
Whiteboard Viewport Synchronization Based On Triggers Associated With Conference Participants
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581035
VIDEO CONFERENCE WITH SUBTILING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 776 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month