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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/794,483 originally filed on August 5, 2024. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination. Claim 1 is independent.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority of TW112133042 (Taiwan), filed August 31, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 on September 3, 2024.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2006/0117623) in view of Cilluffo et al. (hereinafter “Cilluffo,” US 2006/0087163).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses …
a display (Watanabe Abstract, “provide a display monitor”); and
a multi-functional remote controller (see Watanabe Fig. 15, showing remote controller 53), wherein
a top of the display being disposed with an accommodating space for placing the multi-functional remote controller (see Watanabe Figs. 15 and 20, showing remote controller holder 51 accommodating a remote controller 53 disposed on an upper portion of the display);
…
the accommodating space is disposed with a pressing structure (Watanabe [0177], “When remote controller holder 51 is formed of a material such as a plastic, etc., which has appropriate flexibility and is formed so that two claws 51b and 51b can hold remote controller 53 with pressure, inserting remote controller 53 into remote controller holder 51 with a certain force causes claws 51b to elastically deform to thereby hold remote controller 53 in remote controller holder 51 in a gripping manner,” remote controller is placed into the remote controller holder by pressing to cause claws to grip it in place).
Watanabe does not teach a vehicle rear seat entertainment integration module … a bracket fixing slot is provided at a center of a back of the display.
Watanabe discloses a display with a bracket provided at the center for fixing onto a display stand (see Watanabe Fig. 2). Watanabe’s display is not for integration with a vehicle rear seat, and the bracket is not for fixing to a vehicle rear seat.
However, Cilluffo discloses a vehicle rear seat entertainment integration module … a bracket fixing slot is provided at a center of a back of the display (Cilluffo Abstract, “A method and apparatus for mounting a rear seat entertainment device easily and quickly on a seat of a vehicle without affecting the height adjustment of a headrest. The method includes the steps of preparing a bracket having an attachment portion for attachment with the seat and a mounting wall for attachment with a rear seat entertainment device”; also see Cilluffo Fig. 9A, showing rear seat entertainment device 95 with bracket 71 fixed substantially at the center of the back of the display).
Cilluffo is analogous to Watanabe, as both are drawn to the art of display devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Watanabe, to include a vehicle rear seat entertainment integration module … a bracket fixing slot is provided at a center of a back of the display, as taught by Cilluffo, in order to allow attachment of the display easily and quickly to the rear of a vehicle seat (Cilluffo [0019]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Cilluffo discloses wherein the multi-functional remote controller is removed from or fixed in the accommodating space by the pressing structure (Watanabe [0177], “When remote controller holder 51 is formed of a material such as a plastic, etc., which has appropriate flexibility and is formed so that two claws 51b and 51b can hold remote controller 53 with pressure, inserting remote controller 53 into remote controller holder 51 with a certain force causes claws 51b to elastically deform to thereby hold remote controller 53 in remote controller holder 51 in a gripping manner,” remote controller is placed into the remote controller holder by pressing to cause claws to grip it in place).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Cilluffo, and in further view of Winick (US 2018/0250588).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Cilluffo does not teach wherein the multi-functional remote controller comprises: a plurality of ring-shaped multi-tasking selection buttons, being disposed on both sides of the multi-functional remote controller; a selection button, being disposed on a downside of the multi-functional remote controller; a volume button, being disposed on an upside of the multi-functional remote controller; and an e-sport ambient light, being disposed on top of the multi-functional remote controller.
However, Winick discloses wherein the multi-functional remote controller comprises: a plurality of ring-shaped multi-tasking selection buttons, being disposed on both sides of the multi-functional remote controller; a selection button, being disposed on a downside of the multi-functional remote controller; a volume button, being disposed on an upside of the multi-functional remote controller; and an e-sport ambient light, being disposed on top of the multi-functional remote controller (see Winick Fig. 3, showing multi-functional remote controller with ring shaped selection buttons 9-12 and 14-17 on each side of the controller, and selection buttons 50 and/or 80; also Winick [0046], “The volume control of the device is a volume rocker switch, with up/down control of the volume. Vibration intensity is also controllable through this rocker switch,” volume button; also Winick [0034], “The game control platform 70 on the left and right controller/console 20, 30 both have a trigger button 50, a glide pad 70 surrounded with LED light 90, palm grip 60 and ergonomic curve 55,” LED light disposed on top of the remote controller).
Winick is analogous to Watanabe in view of Cilluffo, as both are drawn to the art of remote controllers. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Watanabe in view of Cilluffo, to include wherein the multi-functional remote controller comprises: a plurality of ring-shaped multi-tasking selection buttons, being disposed on both sides of the multi-functional remote controller; a selection button, being disposed on a downside of the multi-functional remote controller; a volume button, being disposed on an upside of the multi-functional remote controller; and an e-sport ambient light, being disposed on top of the multi-functional remote controller, as taught by Winick, since it would have combined prior art remote controller elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick do not explicitly teach the specific location placement of the various remote controller controls. However, the Applicant’s specific location placement of the various remote controller controls is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the specific location placement of the various remote controller controls solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any specific location placement of the various remote controller controls of Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick to obtain the device as specified in claim 4, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, and in further view of Rogers (US 6,794,992).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick does not explicitly teach wherein the multi-functional remote controller is configured to be used in a vertical mode and/or a horizontal mode.
However, Rogers discloses wherein the multi-functional remote controller is configured to be used in a vertical mode and/or a horizontal mode (see Rogers Figs. 2 and 3A, showing vertical mode and horizontal mode, respectively; also Rogers col. 5 lines 1-17, “When the remote control held in a vertical position for use in controlling a television, VCR, DVD player, CD player, etc., the IR Lamp Driver Circuit 48 drives LED 49a, located at the top edge of the remote control unit. When the remote control is held in the horizontal position for controlling a game console, the lamp driver 48 drives LED 49b, which is located along the side edge of the remote control unit.”).
Rogers is analogous to Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, as both are drawn to the art of remote controllers. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, to include wherein the multi-functional remote controller is configured to be used in a vertical mode and/or a horizontal mode, as taught by Rogers, so that users do not need to switch between separate controller units (Rogers col. 2 lines 1-30). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick does not teach wherein when the multi-functional remote controller is used as a traditional remote controller, the multi-functional remote controller is used in the vertical mode.
However, Rogers discloses wherein when the multi-functional remote controller is used as a traditional remote controller, the multi-functional remote controller is used in the vertical mode (see Rogers Figs. 2 and 3A, showing vertical mode and horizontal mode, respectively; also Rogers Abstract, “A hand-held remote control unit for controlling the operation of a television and other electronic audio/video components, such as a VCR, DVD player, or home stereo, operates in a different mode for use as a video game controller. The location and position of the push buttons on the remote controller unit are arranged such that a subset of the buttons that are used for the television remote control are operable in a different mode as a video game controller. A user rotates the remote control unit from a vertically upright position to a horizontal position to use the remote control unit for operating a video gaming system. When used as a video game controller, the controller indicates which of the subset of buttons on the remote control are to be used for operating the video game.”).
Rogers is analogous to Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, as both are drawn to the art of remote controllers. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, to include wherein when the multi-functional remote controller is used as a traditional remote controller, the multi-functional remote controller is used in the vertical mode, as taught by Rogers, so that users do not need to switch between separate controller units (Rogers col. 2 lines 1-30). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick does not teach wherein when the multi-functional remote controller is used as a game handle, the multi-functional remote controller is used in the horizontal mode.
However, Rogers discloses wherein when the multi-functional remote controller is used as a game handle, the multi-functional remote controller is used in the horizontal mode (see Rogers Figs. 2 and 3A, showing vertical mode and horizontal mode, respectively; also Rogers Abstract, “A hand-held remote control unit for controlling the operation of a television and other electronic audio/video components, such as a VCR, DVD player, or home stereo, operates in a different mode for use as a video game controller. The location and position of the push buttons on the remote controller unit are arranged such that a subset of the buttons that are used for the television remote control are operable in a different mode as a video game controller. A user rotates the remote control unit from a vertically upright position to a horizontal position to use the remote control unit for operating a video gaming system. When used as a video game controller, the controller indicates which of the subset of buttons on the remote control are to be used for operating the video game.”).
Rogers is analogous to Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, as both are drawn to the art of remote controllers. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Watanabe in view of Cilluffo and Winick, to include wherein when the multi-functional remote controller is used as a game handle, the multi-functional remote controller is used in the horizontal mode, as taught by Rogers, so that users do not need to switch between separate controller units (Rogers col. 2 lines 1-30). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Cilluffo, Winick, and Rogers, and in further view of Biheller (US 2006/0217197).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Cilluffo does not explicitly teach wherein the e-sport ambient light changes color or brightness according to gaming scenarios.
However, Biheller discloses wherein the e-sport ambient light changes color or brightness according to gaming scenarios (Biheller [0018], “The visual feedback may be in terms of flashing lights, stationary lights, or other types of light display mechanism that should be appreciated by a person of skill in the art. Furthermore, one portion of the game controller may display one light color while another portion of the game controller may display a different light color. Furthermore, the portions of the game controller that may be lit may differ depending on the actions taken during the game.”).
Biheller is analogous to Watanabe in view of Cilluffo, Winick, and Rogers, as both are drawn to the art of game controllers. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Watanabe in view of Cilluffo, Winick, and Rogers, to include wherein the e-sport ambient light changes color or brightness according to gaming scenarios, as taught by Biheller, in order to make the gaming experience more appealing (Biheller [0005]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Although prior art references disclose aspects of providing ambient lighting from the back of a display, no prior art could be found that has a ring-shaped ambient light disposed along an outer side of the bracket fixing slot behind a rear seat entertainment display screen, which makes different changes in lighting effect according to usage scenarios of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McCarten et al. (US 2006/0009289) Car-based entertainment system with video gaming
Kimura et al. (US 2011/0019106) Remote controller
Rossl (US 2023/0005394) Battery-operated electronic label, appears to disclose ambient lighting emanating from back of screen display
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights