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 arguments and amendments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to recite “wherein, as the transparency of the second layer increases, the controller is configured to display, on the first layer or on a third layer, a menu for controlling the first content image, the menu corresponding to a type of the first content image”. Taylor discloses controlling the transparency of the EPG/second layer so that the user can more clearly see the EPG as the transparency of the EPG increases (see Figures 2A-2D). Within the EPG a menu is included that allows the user to change the television program being displayed in the first layer 202, wherein the menu includes the channels programs are broadcasted on, the time they are broadcasted and the title of the program, all of which represent a type of the first content image/television program. Therefore, the rejection stands and has been updated 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.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 6,981,227) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0142132).
Referring to claim 1, Taylor discloses a display, a user input interface configured to receive signals from a remote-control device and a controller (see Figure 1 and Column 5, Line 20 through Column 6, Line 18 and Figure 4).
Taylor also discloses play a first content image on a first layer of the display, when a trigger for adjusting a transparency of a second layer higher than the first layer is occurred (see Figures 2A-2B and Column 6, Lines 35-41 and Column 7, Lines 15-47 for displaying a television program and an EPG data overlay), activate a function of adjusting the transparency of the second layer according to the trigger (see Figure 2C and Column 7, Line 48 through Column 8 for providing the option to change the transparency of the EPG data overlay), receive an input signal for adjusting the transparency of the second layer from the remote control device (see Figure 4 and Column 8, Lines 34-43) and adjust the transparency of the second layer playing a second content according to the input signal (see Column 9, Line 35 through Column 10, Line 10).
Taylor also discloses that as the transparency of the second layer increases, the controller is configured to display, on the first layer or on a third layer, a menu for controlling the first content image, the menu corresponding to a type of the first content image (see Figures 2A-2D and corresponding portions of the specification for controlling the transparency of the EPG/second layer so that the user can more clearly see the EPG as the transparency of the EPG increases, wherein the EPG a menu is included that allows the user to change the television program being displayed in the first layer 202, wherein the menu includes the channels programs are broadcasted on, the time they are broadcasted and the title of the program, all of which represent a type of the first content image/television program).
Taylor fails to teach obtaining a scroll up signal corresponding to a scroll up of a wheel provided in the remote control device or a scroll down signal corresponding to a scroll down of the wheel as the input signal for adjusting the transparency.
Brown discloses obtaining a scroll up signal corresponding to a scroll up of a wheel provided in the remote control device or a scroll down signal corresponding to a scroll down of the wheel as the input signal for adjusting the transparency (see Paragraphs 0060 and Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency control system, as taught by Taylor, using the transparency control scroll wheel functionality, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of advantageously providing a method, system, and program for adjusting a transparency of a graphical object, including a window, in response to the rotation of a scroll wheel on a pointing device (see Paragraph 0022 of Brown).
Referring to claim 7, Taylor discloses that the controller is configured to display a menu corresponding to a type of the first content image as the transparency of the second layer increases (see Column 6, Line 62 through Column 7, Line 8 and the Examiner’s rebuttal above).
Referring to claim 8, Taylor discloses that the menu is a menu for manipulating a channel when the first content image is a real-time broadcast image (see Figure 2C for the menu being an EPG that allows a user to select a channel/program to view).
Referring to claim 9, Taylor and Brown disclose all of the limitations of claim 7, but fails to teach that the menu includes thumbnail images of previously accessed web pages.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a graphical user interface can include thumbnail images of previously accessed web pages.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency user interface system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, to include previously accessed web pages, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing additional information regarding web pages the user may be interested in viewing again.
Referring to claim 10, Brown also discloses that the controller is configured to display only the first content image on the display when the transparency of the second layer becomes 100% (see Paragraphs 0060 and Figure 7, wherein if the scroll wheel is increased to 100% the transparency is maximized and the window being made more transparent completely disappears).
Referring to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 16, Taylor and Brown disclose all of the limitations of claim 16, but fails to teach that the controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when a connection signal from an IoT device is detected.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when a connection signal from an IoT device is detected.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency user interface system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, to include IoT device and transparency adjustment functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing a diverse range of devices to adjust the transparency of objects in a GUI.
Referring to claim 17, Taylor and Brown disclose all of the limitations of claim 16, but fails to teach that the controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when a sports game result is detected.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when a sports game result is detected.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency user interface system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, to include IoT device and transparency adjustment functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing a diverse range of devices to adjust the transparency of objects in a GUI.
Referring to claim 18, Taylor also discloses that the controller is configured to display a menu for controlling the first content image as the transparency of the second layer increases, and wherein the menu is displayed on the first layer (see Figures 2A-2B).
Referring to claim 19, Taylor also discloses that the controller is configured to display a channel manipulation menu for controlling the real-time broadcast image as the transparency of the second layer increases or becomes 100 percent (see Figures 2A-2B and Column 6, Line 19 through Column 8, Line 11).
Referring to claim 20, Taylor and Brown discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as well as increasing the transparency of the second layer on the first layer (see the rejection of claim 1), but fail to teach that the controller is configured to display a menu including thumbnails representing web pages accessed prior to the web page on the first layer.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a controller is configured to display a menu including thumbnails representing web pages accessed prior to the web page on the first layer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency user interface system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, to include the web page display functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing additional information regarding web pages the user may be interested in viewing again.
Referring to claims 22-23, see the rejection of claim 18.
Referring to claim 24, see the rejection of claim 19.
Claims 2, 6, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 6,981,227) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0142132) in further view of Walter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0120639).
Referring to claim 2, Taylor and Brown disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that the controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when an alarm related to the second content image is received.
Walter discloses a controller that is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when an alarm related to the second content image is received (see Paragraph 0029 and 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency control system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, using the emergency alert semi-transparent display functionality, as taught by Walter, for the purpose of allowing a user interface to display emergency alerts from agencies such as NWS, FEMA and Homeland Security (see Paragraph 0018 of Walter).
Referring to claim 6, Taylor and Brown disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that the controller is configured to determine that the trigger has occurred when alarm pop-up window related to the second content image is displayed.
Walter discloses that the controller is configured to determine that the trigger has occurred when alarm pop-up window related to the second content image is displayed (see Paragraph 0029 and 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency control system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, using the emergency alert semi-transparent display functionality, as taught by Walter, for the purpose of allowing a user interface to display emergency alerts from agencies such as NWS, FEMA and Homeland Security (see Paragraph 0018 of Walter).
Referring to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2.
Referring to claim 21, see the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 6,981,227) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0142132) in further view of Bae et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0249919).
Referring to claim 3, Taylor and Brown disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that the second content is a mirroring image for screen sharing received from an external device and wherein the controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when the mirroring image is received.
Bae discloses that a second content is a mirroring image for screen sharing received from an external device and wherein a controller is configured to determine that the trigger for adjusting the transparency has occurred when the mirroring image is received (see Paragraphs 0284-0286).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparency control system, as taught by Taylor and Brown, using the mirror screen transparency adjustment functionality, as taught by Bae, for the purpose of removing an unnecessary image inserted due to the mismatch of the resolution or aspect ratio when a screen sharing is provided during Wi-Fi Director service between two wireless devices (see Paragraph 0009 of Bae).
Referring to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 3.
Conclusion
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 P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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 Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights