Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,088,747. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, and 13-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wolfe (2005/0120380).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfe discloses A video display system comprising
a video display device (102); and
a portable video display device (104; 105; 106; 107) communicatively connected to the video display device, wherein the video display device is configured to:
generate first video data in a first video data format (226);
generate first audio data in a first audio data format (228);
in a first operation mode, display the first video data (220. 222) and play the first audio data (224);
receive operation information from the portable video display device, wherein the operation information is indicating a content of an operation input received at the portable video display device (par. 43, 46, 47, 53); and switch from the first operation mode to a second operation mode based on the operation information (par. 47), and wherein, in the second operation mode, the video display device is configured to:
generate second video data in a second video data format different from the first video data format (par. 47, 53);
generate second audio data in an second audio data format different from the first audio data format (par. 47, 53);
transmit the second video data and the second audio data to the portable video display device (216).
Par. 32, 33, 46 and 47 in Wolfe collectively indicates that the memory 210 is being used to store video/audio data in different formats and to convert and transmit to the remote entertainment device 104 based on the requested encoding rate. That is, the memory 210 is intended to be used to store video in one of the high, standard and low definition formats and to transmit to the remote entertainment device 104 in one of the high, standard and low definition formats. The combinations or modes of the storing format and the transmitting format are decided by the user based on the constraints of the overall system and transmission channels. For instance, the user at the remote entertainment device 104 can configure the system 102 to transmit a low definition video from a stored standard video, or a low definition from a high definition, or a high definition from a standard definition, or standard definition from a low definition, or standard definition from a high definition, etc.. Thus, Wolfe still meets the first and second operation mode when interpreted broadly.
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe discloses the video display device is configured to encode the first video data into the video data format and the first audio data into the audio data format that can be processed by the portable video display device to generate the second video data and the second audio data (note the transcoder 214 in par. 46), and wherein the portable video display device is configured to decode and display the second video data and decode and play the second audio data (note par. 56).
Regarding claim 3, Wolfe discloses the portable video display device receives a connection start instruction firstly, when operating in the second operation mode (note the user selection step 524 and download step 526 in par. 86).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe discloses the connection start instruction is issued by a user to a controller (note par. 86).
Regarding claim 5, see rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Wolfe discloses the video display device is communicatively connected to a plurality of portable video display devices (note 104, 105, 106, 107; par. 22 teaches one or more personal entertainment apparatuses), wherein the video display device is configured to: receive, from each of the plurality of a portable video display devices, identification information for each of the plurality of portable video display devices, generate a plurality of second video data and a plurality of second audio data that differ from each other, and transmit to each of the plurality of portable video display devices identified by the identification information, the second video data and second audio data differing from each other (note par. 25, 43, 44, 51, 59). That is, Wolfe inherently includes the identification information for each of the plurality of personal entertainment apparatuses when the communication protocols as described in par. 25, 42, 44, 51 and 59 are being employed. As described in the disclosure, each of the plurality of personal entertainment apparatuses is capable to select different video programs from the server 102 as desired.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, see rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Wolfe discloses the video display device is configured to provide the first video data and the first audio data in a frame buffer (226) and an audio buffer (228), respectively, and further configured to provide the second video data in a video memory (inherently included in video decoder 226 as video output buffer) different from the frame buffer and to provide the second audio data in an audio memory (inherently included in audio decoder 228 as audio output buffer) different from the audio buffer. Similarly, the transcoder 214 in Wolfe also inherently includes above memory arrangements (note par. 46 and 47). That is, the transcoder 214 inherently includes input audio/video memories or buffers and output audio/video memories or buffers.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to rejection to claim 13, Wolfe inherently includes a memory device comprising the video memory and the audio memory.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to rejection to claim 13, Wolfe further discloses the video display device is configured to reduce at least a size of the video memory or a size of the audio memory responsive to the operation information, when a type of the content allows at least one of the first video data or the first audio data to change responsive to the operation information (note par. 46 and 47).
Regarding claim 16, Wolfe discloses the video display device is configured to change a data transfer speed based on a size of at least one of the second video data or the second audio data, and transmit at least one of the second video data or the second audio data at the data transfer speed (note par. 46 and 47).
Regarding claim 17, Wolfe discloses the video display device is configured to change encoding bit rate of at least one of the second video data or the second audio data based on a data transfer speed (note par. 46 and 47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Wolfe does not disclose or suggest the claimed "switch from the first operation mode to a second operation mode based on the operation information” as claimed, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, Wolfe inherently discloses the first and second modes of operations. In view of the new interpretations, Wolfe still meets the claimed invention. As a result, the prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422