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 .
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 Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered 12/1/2025.
Status of Claims
Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 16-21 have been added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4, 5, and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20210118410 A1 to Grieves.
As to claim 1, Eaton discloses a display device, comprising:
a storage device (Eaton Fig. 1-3, 0041, 0043, storage/memory);
a controller to: generate a graphical user interface (GUI) for adjusting settings of the display device (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0041, 0044, 0049-0051, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, CPU generating/displaying the font size selection test for adjusting the font settings of the display device);
determine a user is visually impaired (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, determining user vision problem);
in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, adjust a size of the (GUI)(Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0038, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, adjusting the size of the font on the font size selection test in response to the user having vision problem); and
store the size to which the GUI is adjusted in the storage device of the display device (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0037-0038, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, locally storing the adjusted the size of the font on the font size selection test in the storage/memory of the display device).
Eaton does not expressly disclose receive an image from an image sensor; and
determine a user is visually impaired utilizing the image.
Grieves discloses receive an image from an image sensor (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0122, 0129, processor with memory to receive image of the user from a camera);
determine a user is visually impaired utilizing the image (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0043-0044, 0122, 0129, determining/analyze the user is visually impaired based on analyzing the image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton by receive an image from an image sensor and determine a user is visually impaired utilizing the image as disclosed by Grieves. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to determining if the user is exhibiting visual impairments based on the captures images of the user thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 2, Grieves discloses wherein the controller is to: determine a distance from the image sensor to the user by utilizing the image (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0042-0044, 0047, 0051, 0055, 0122, 0129, determine distance from the camera to the user); and in response to a determination that the distance is within a threshold range, determine that the user is visually impaired (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0042-0044, 0047, 0051, 0055, 0122, 0129, the user is closer than a predetermined threshold distance from the display 110 of the computing device 105, then the magnifier unit 305 can be configured to determine that the user's face is close to the display 110 of the computing device 105).
As to claim 4, Grieves discloses wherein the distance is a first distance (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0042, 0043,0047, 0051, 0055, 0122, and wherein the controller is to: receive a second image from the image sensor (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0042, 0043,0047, 0051, 0055, 0122, 0129, receive series of images of the user from a camera); determine a second distance from the image sensor to the user by utilizing the second image (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0042, 0043,0047, 0051, 0055, 0122, determining using the series of images of the user, the user is closer than a predetermined threshold distance from the display 110); and in response to a determination that the second distance is less than the first distance, adjust the size of the GUI for adjusting the settings of the display device (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0042-0044, 0047, 0051, 0055, 0122, 0129, determining the user is closer than a predetermined threshold distance from the display 110 of the computing device 105, then the magnifier unit 305 can be configured to determine that the user's face is close to the display 110 of the computing device 105).
As to claim 5, Grieves discloses wherein the controller is to: detect an eye anomaly by utilizing the image; and in response to detecting the eye anomaly, determine that the user is visually impaired (Grieves Fig. 1, 3-11, ¶0027, 0031, 0034, 0043-0044, 0050, 0051, the image analysis unit 310 may be configured to determine whether the user is squinting based on changes in the aspect ratio of the user's eyes and in response to the user squinting, determine that the user is visually impaired).
As to claim 18, Eaton discloses an interface to couple the display device to an electronic device (Eaton Fig. 3, ¶0049, 0058, network interface to connect the display device to other computer apparatus).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20210118410 A1 to Grieves and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20120287163 A1 to Djavaherian.
As to claim 3, Eaton and Grieves do not expressly disclose wherein the controller is to store the distance from the image sensor to the user in the storage device of the display device.
Djavaherian discloses wherein the controller is to store the distance from the image sensor to the user in the storage device of the display device (Djavaherian Fig. 1, ¶0008, 0014-0015, 0017-0018, 0024, processor to store the distance from the sensor to the user in the storage of the computing device with display).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton and Grieves by wherein the controller is to store the distance from the image sensor to the user in the storage device of the display device as disclosed by Djavaherian. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to store the distance in the memory of the device that allows the system to recall stored information without having to recalculate the distance thereby enhancing the system resources/operation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20170344108 A1 to Mosqueda Mejia.
As to claim 6, Eaton discloses a display device, comprising:
a storage device (Eaton Fig. 1-3, 0041, 0043, storage/memory);
and a controller to: generate a graphical user interface (GUI) for adjusting settings of the display device (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0041, 0044, 0049-0051, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, CPU generating/displaying the font size selection test for adjusting the font settings of the display device);
determine a user is visually impaired (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, determining user vision problem);
in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, determine a scaling to apply to a size of the GUI (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0038, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, adjusting the size of the font on the font size selection test in response to the user having vision problem);
cause a display of the GUI having the scaling (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0038, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, displaying the font size selection test having the increase/adjusted font size); and
store the scaling to the storage device of the display device (Eaton Fig. 1-8, 10-11, ¶0033-0034, 0037-0038, 0061-0064, 0066-0070, locally storing the adjusted the size of the font on the font size selection test in the storage/memory of the display device).
Eaton does not expressly disclose an image sensor;
receive an indicator from an electronic device coupled to the display device;
in response to the indicator, receive an image from the image sensor;
determine a user is visually impaired utilizing the image;
in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, determine a scaling to apply to a size of the GUI based on the indicator
Mosqueda discloses an image sensor (Mosqueda Mejia ¶0013, 0014, 0037, camera);
receive an indicator from an electronic device coupled to the display device (Mosqueda Mejia ¶0013-0014, 0020-0021, 0023, 0025, 0029, 0031, user interacts, giving feedback and/or receiving user profile, to the computer 302 coupled to the output device 624);
in response to the indicator, receive an image from the image sensor (Mosqueda Mejia ¶0013-0014, 0020-0021, 0023, 0025, 0029, 0031, in response to the user interaction, giving feedback and/or receiving user profile, receiving image from the camera);
determine a user is visually impaired utilizing the image (Mosqueda Mejia ¶0013-0014, 0020-0021, 0023, 0025, 0029, 0031, determine/identify the user is visually impaired using the gaze module that captured the image of the user);
in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, determine a scaling to apply to a size of the GUI based on the indicator (Mosqueda Mejia ¶0013-0014, 0020-0021, 0023, 0025, 0029, 0031, in response to the determined visual impairment of the user, determining to modify/increase the screen content based on the user interaction, giving feedback and/or receiving user profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton by an image sensor, receive an indicator from an electronic device coupled to the display device, in response to the indicator, receive an image from the image sensor, determine a user is visually impaired utilizing the image, and in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, determine a scaling to apply to a size of the GUI based on the indicator as disclosed by Mosqueda Mejia. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to determining if the user is exhibiting visual impairments based on the captures images of the user thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20170344108 A1 to Mosqueda Mejia and in further view of in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20020112248 A1 to Takagi.
As to claim 7, Eaton and Mosqueda Mejia do not expressly disclose wherein the indicator from the electronic device is to indicate a text size, and wherein the controller is to determine the scaling such that the size of a text of the GUI for adjusting the settings of the display device is equivalent to the text size.
Takagi discloses wherein the indicator from the electronic device is to indicate a text size (Takagi Fig. 1-5, ¶0033-0036, user selection from the input device to select font size), and wherein the controller is to determine the scaling such that the size of a text of the GUI for adjusting the settings of the display device is equivalent to the text size (Takagi Fig. 1-5, ¶0031, 0033-0036, control unit to determine to decrease/increase where the size of the text/font of the menu for adjusting the settings of the display device to the settings the user selected font size).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton and Mosqueda Mejia by wherein the indicator from the electronic device is to indicate a text size, and wherein the controller is to determine the scaling such that the size of a text of the GUI for adjusting the settings of the display device is equivalent to the text size as disclosed by Takagi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the user a input device to allow the user to select the font size thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20170344108 A1 to Mosqueda Mejia and in further view of in view of US Pub. No. 20130318553 A1 to Yegorov.
As to claim 9, Eaton and Mosqueda Mejia do not expressly disclose wherein the controller is to cause transmission of data associated with the scaling to a text-to-speech executable code.
Yegorov discloses wherein the controller is to cause transmission of data associated with the scaling to a text-to-speech executable code (Yegorov ¶0026, 0032, 0034-0036, 0045, 0047-0048, causing the text to speech converter to convert text into speech in response to the graphically magnified focus elements in the GUI and initiating audible representation of content associated with the focused elements).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton and Mosqueda Mejia by wherein the controller is to cause transmission of data associated with the scaling to a text-to-speech executable code as disclosed by Yegorov. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide magnification and audio enhancements by providing text to speech for magnified portions on the user interface thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 10, Yegorov discloses an audio device, and wherein execution of machine-readable instructions of the text-to-speech executable code causes the controller to: convert the data associated with the scaling to speech; and cause the audio device to output the speech (Yegorov ¶0026, 0032, 0034-0036, 0045, 0047-0048, the text-to-speech converter 216 may be realized as a module of the processor 210 and/or with appropriate processing logic, hardware, software, firmware, or the like. The text-to-speech converter 216 is suitably configured to convert text into synthesized speech, so that the synthesized speech can be audibly annunciated to the user. If the text is displayed with a GUI element, the text-to-speech converter 216 can translate the displayed text into synthesized speech)
As to claim 20, Yegorov discloses wherein the storage device stores the text-to- speech executable code (Yegorov ¶0026, 0032, 0034-0036, 0045, 0047-0048, the text-to-speech converter 216 may be realized as a module of the processor 210 and/or with appropriate processing logic, hardware, software, firmware, or the like).
Claims 11, 13, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180139434 A1 to Roe in view of US Pub. No. 20100235745 A1 to Shintani.
As to claim 11, Roe discloses a display device, comprising:
a storage device to store a first configuration and a second configuration of a graphical user interface (GUI), the first configuration associated with a first range and the second configuration associated with a second range (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0032, 0049-0053, database storage storing a plurality of different display settings e.g. different font sizes of the program listing, the plurality of display settings associated different metrics); and
an interface for coupling the display device to an electronic device (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6-10 ¶0071, 0085, 0088, 0093, display/television communicatively connected to various devices, e.g. servers, detection module);
a controller coupled to the storage device, the controller to: determine a measurement utilizing an image captured by an image sensor (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0038-0041, 0062-0064, 0071, 0083, control/processing circuitry coupled to the storage, the control/processing circuitry to determine various measurements using the captured image of the user);
generate the GUI (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0034, 0071, 0073-0074, 0084, control/processing circuitry to generate the program listing/guide);
in response to the measurement being within the first range, enable the first configuration (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049 and 0050-0053, 0057-0060, retrieve the plurality of display settings associated with the measurement being within a metric); and
in response to the measurement being within the second range, enable the second configuration (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049 and 0050-0053, 0057-0060, 0119-0124, retrieve the plurality of display settings associated with the measurement being within a second metric).
display the GUI according to the enabled configuration (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049, 0050-0053, 0057-0060, 0119-0124, displaying the program listing/guide based on the retrieved display associated with the measurement being within the different metrics).
Roe does not expressly disclose a graphical user interface (GUI) for adjusting settings of the display device
Shintani discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) for adjusting settings of the display device (Shintani Fig. 1-7, ¶0022, 0026, 0028, 0032, on-screen menu for adjusting various settings of the television).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roe by a graphical user interface (GUI) for adjusting settings of the display device as disclosed by Shintani. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide visual enhancements that increases the visibility of various on-screen menus of the display/television thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 13, Roe discloses wherein the measurement is a diameter of an eye feature (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0039-0040, 0063, 0093, measuring pupil diameter), and wherein the controller is to: determine the diameter of the eye feature utilizing the image (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0039-0040, 0063, 0093, determine the pupil diameter using the captured image of the user);
in response to determining that the diameter is within the first range, enable the first configuration (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049 and 0050-0053, retrieve the plurality of display settings associated with the measurement being within a metric); and in response to determining that the diameter is within the second range, enable the second configuration (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049 and 0050-0053, retrieve the plurality of display settings associated with the measurement being within the metric).
As to claim 14, Roe discloses wherein the controller is to: determine a second measurement utilizing a second image captured by the image sensor (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049, 0050-0053, 0119-0124, 0126-0127, 0139, determining plurality of measurements using the captured plurality of images by the camera); and in response to the measurement not being within the first range or the second range, determine a scaling to apply to a size of the GUI for adjusting settings of the display device based on an indicator received from the electronic device (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049, 0050-0053, 0093, 0119-0124, 0126-0127, 0139, 0142-0143, if the measurement is not within the range of metrics retrieve a subset of stored display settings associated with the user based on received sensor/camera), and store the scaling and the measurement to a third configuration on the storage device (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049, 0050-0053, 0119-0124, 0126-0127, 0139, store the eye strain metrics that indicate an acceptable degree of eye strain from the viewer and store subset of display settings that cause the viewer to experience an acceptable degree of eye strain).
As to claim 21, Shintani discloses wherein the GUI includes options for selecting at least one of a video input source, a power management setting, a performance setting, a picture- in-picture setting, a data channel, or a factory reset (Shintani Fig. 1-7, ¶0022, 0026, 0028, 0032, on-screen menu for adjusting various settings of the television, e.g. input, channel search, sleep).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180139434 A1 to Roe in view of US Pub. No. 20100235745 A1 to Shintani and in further view of US Pub. No. 20130057553 A1 to Chakravarthula.
As to claim 12, Roe and Shintani do not expressly disclose wherein the measurement is a distance, and wherein the controller is to: determine the distance from the image sensor to a user utilizing the image; in response to determining that the distance is within the first range, determine the user is a first user; and in response to determining that the distance is within the second range, determine the user is a second user.
Chakravarthula discloses wherein the measurement is a distance (Chakravarthula ¶0048, 0053-0057, measuring the distance between the user and camera), and wherein the controller is to: determine the distance from the image sensor to a user utilizing the image (Chakravarthula ¶0048, 0053-0057, measuring the distance between the user and camera); in response to determining that the distance is within the first range, determine the user is a first user (Chakravarthula ¶0048, 0053-0057, determining the user as a first user e.g. child/adult, in response to determining the distance is preprogrammed distance); and in response to determining that the distance is within the second range, determine the user is a second user (Chakravarthula ¶0048, 0053-0057, determining the user as a first user e.g. child/adult, in response to determining the distance is preprogrammed distance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roe and Shintani by wherein the measurement is a distance, and wherein the controller is to: determine the distance from the image sensor to a user utilizing the image; in response to determining that the distance is within the first range, determine the user is a first user; and in response to determining that the distance is within the second range, determine the user is a second user. as disclosed by Chakravarthula. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to automatically increase/decrease the font/icon size based on different preprogrammed distances identifying different ages of users thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180139434 A1 to Roe in view of US Pub. No. 20100235745 A1 to Shintani and in further view of US Pub. No. 20100199215 A1 to Seymour.
As to claim 15, Roe discloses an audio device (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0088, speakers), wherein the first configuration includes a first size of a menu for adjusting display device settings sizes and the second configuration includes a second size of the menu (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0042-0049 and 0050-0053, 0057-0060, retrieve the plurality of display settings associated with the measurement being within a metric and adjusting the size based on each of the display settings).
Roe and Shintani do not expressly disclose wherein the storage device is to store text-to-speech executable code, and wherein execution of machine-readable instructions of the text-to-speech executable code causes the controller to: convert data of the menu to speech; and cause the audio device to output the speech.
Seymour discloses wherein the storage device is to store text-to-speech executable code, and wherein execution of machine-readable instructions of the text-to-speech executable code causes the controller to: convert data of the menu to speech; and cause the audio device to output the speech (Seymour Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, ¶0044, 0045, 0054, 0116, 0118, storage in the computer to store programs including text-to-speech program/engine, the program causing the processor to convert the text of the user interface into audio and outputting the audio to the audio output port).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roe and Shintani by wherein the storage device is to store text-to-speech executable code, and wherein execution of machine-readable instructions of the text-to-speech executable code causes the controller to: convert data of the menu to speech; and cause the audio device to output the speech as disclosed by Seymour. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide to provide the user accessibility browsing by enabling text to speech of the user interface thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20210118410 A1 to Grieves and in further view of US Pub. No. 20130318553 A1 to Yegorov.
As to claim 16, Eaton and Grieves do not expressly disclose wherein the controller is to: in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, enable a text-to-speech executable code to covert data of the settings of the display device to speech and cause an audio device to output the speech.
Yegorov discloses wherein the controller is to: in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, enable a text-to-speech executable code to covert data of the settings of the display device to speech and cause an audio device to output the speech (Yegorov ¶0026, 0032, 0034-0036, 0045, 0047-0048, causing the text to speech converter to convert text into speech in response to the graphically magnified focus elements in the GUI and initiating audible representation of content associated with the focused elements and, the text-to-speech converter 216 may be realized as a module of the processor 210 and/or with appropriate processing logic, hardware, software, firmware, or the like. The text-to-speech converter 216 is suitably configured to convert text into synthesized speech, so that the synthesized speech can be audibly annunciated to the user. If the text is displayed with a GUI element, the text-to-speech converter 216 can translate the displayed text into synthesized speech).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton and Grieves by wherein the controller is to: in response to determining that the user is visually impaired, enable a text-to-speech executable code to covert data of the settings of the display device to speech and cause an audio device to output the speech as disclosed by Yegorov. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide magnification and audio enhancements by providing text to speech for magnified portions on the user interface thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 17, Yegorov discloses wherein the text-to-speech executable code is stored in the storage device of the display device (Yegorov ¶0023, 0026, 0032, 0034-0036, 0045, 0047-0048, the text-to-speech converter 216 may be realized as a module of the processor 210 and/or with appropriate processing logic, hardware, software, firmware, or the like)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US Pub. No. 20160246762 A1 to Eaton in view of US Pub. No. 20170344108 A1 to Mosqueda Mejia and in further view of US Pub. No. 20120246678 A1 to Barksdale
As to claim 19, Eaton and Mosqueda Mejia do not expressly disclose wherein the controller is to cause the display of the GUI having the scaling by overlaying the GUI on a display image from the electronic device.
Barksdale discloses wherein the controller is to cause the display of the GUI having the scaling by overlaying the GUI on a display image from the electronic device (Barksdale Fig. 1-3 ¶0013, 0033, 0032, 0035, the scalable UI may then scale its overlay onto the video stream based on both the sensed distance and the display size, so that information and UI elements are rendered at the appropriate size for viewing form the sensed distance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eaton and Mosqueda by wherein the controller is to cause the display of the GUI having the scaling by overlaying the GUI on a display image from the electronic device as disclosed by Barksdale. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the GUI that is overlaid on the video that allows the user to simultaneously see the GUI and the video thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 related to claims 11-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to Applicant's arguments:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all features of the claims. For example, Roe (by itself or in combination with Chakravarthula or Seymour) does not disclose or suggest at least "a controller [of the display device] ... to: generate the GUI... and display the GUI according to the [first or second] configuration" as recited in Applicant's claim 11 as amended.
The Office alleges that Roe discloses a display device comprising a storage device and a controller that, based on a measurement utilizing an image from an image sensor, enables a first or second configurations of a GUI for adjusting settings of the display device. Action at pp. 11-12. With regard to the GUI, the Office cites to [0032] and [0049]-[0053] of Roe. Id.
As with the above rejections of claims 1 and 6, Roe is not related to a GUI "for adjusting settings of the display device" as claimed by the Applicant. FIGS. 1-2, on which the Office relies, shows that the GUI corresponds to a program guide "generated by a media guidance application" in accordance with a first (original-size) configuration or a second (zoomed-in) configuration. Roe at [0034], [0057]. The GUI is used to permit a television viewer to view available programs and select a channel using an "interactive television program guide," and is unrelated to adjusting settings of the display device. Id. at [0069].
Again, Roe's disclosure provides for a host system that includes a processor 606 and a storage 608 that is separate from and connected to an external display 612. Id. at FIG. 6, [0088]. Regardless of whether the display 612 is a stand-alone device or an integrated device, it does not include a separate processor or storage, and does not independently generate GUI elements. Id.
In view of these differences between Roe and the claims, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patentably distinct from Roe. However, solely to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims to expressly clarify that the controller of the display device itself generates the GUI for adjusting settings of the display device, and stores the size to which the GUI is adjusted in a storage device of the display device. In other words, the claimed invention is applicable to a display device that itself generates GUI elements and that includes a storage device where data relating to the GUI elements is stored.
Examiners Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Roe discloses the control circuity 604 which includes the processing circuitry 606 and storage 608 for generating the GUI and storing the plurality of different display settings such as the different font sizes of the program listing, the plurality of display settings associated different metrics.
Roe discloses that “user equipment device,” “user equipment,” “user device,” “electronic device,” “electronic equipment,” “media equipment device,” or “media device” should be understood to mean any device for accessing the content described above, such as a television, a Smart TV. In other words the television/Smart TV includes the control circuity 604 which includes the processing circuitry 606 and storage 608 for generating the GUI and storing the plurality of different display settings e.g. different font sizes of the program listing, the plurality of display settings associated different metrics (Roe Fig. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10 ¶0032, 0034, 0038-0041, 0049-0053, 0062-0064, 0071, 0073-0074, 0083, 0084). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 have been rejected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426