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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 18 claims “computer program …”. The computer program claimed as computer listings per see, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things”. They are neither computer components nor statutory process, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer program (software) does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. As such, computer program per se not claimed as embodied/encoded in computer-readable media is not statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized”). Software by itself is not capable of causing functional change in the computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Orad et al. Pub. No.: US 20170302876 A1 (Hereinafter “Orad”).
Regarding Claim 1, Orad discloses a screen time constraining device configured to monitor for satisfaction of a screen time constraint condition for a user (see paragraph [0007]: a transmitter configured to transmit a multiplicity of commands related to managing usage of a screen in accordance with one or more rules), and when the screen time constraint condition is satisfied, prevent display of video information from a video information source selected by a user (see paragraph [0024]: the control should include days or times at which watching is limited or prohibited, limitation on the displayed content or content source, such as TV channels or content from specific sites allowed. Some limitations may include a combination of content and time, for example some content may be allowed only on certain days or times. In addition see paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 2, Orad discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 1. Orad further discloses a communications interface and a processor in communication with the communications interface, wherein the processor is configured to, when the screen time constraint condition is satisfied, send via the communications interface command information indicative of a command to switch the active source
of video information from the user selected video information source to another
source of video information (see paragraphs [0057] and [0090]).
Regarding Claim 3, Orad discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 2. Orad further discloses wherein the other source of video information is the communications interface (see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 4, Orad discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 3. Orad further discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate video information and send the generated video information to the communications interface (see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the discussion being made in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Orad discloses non-transitory processor readable tangible media including program instructions which when executed by a processor causes the processor (see paragraph [0106]) to perform a method defined by claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, Orad discloses computer program for instructing a processor, which when executed by the processor causes the processor (see paragraph [0106]) to perform a method defined by claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19, Orad discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 4. Orad further discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate video information and send the generated video information to the communications interface (see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 20, Orad discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 3. Orad further discloses wherein the communications interface comprises a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) (see paragraph [0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orad et al. Pub. No.: US 20170302876 A1 (Hereinafter “Orad”) in view THOMPSON et al. Pub. No.: US 20220060781 A1 (Hereinafter “THOMPSON”).
Regarding Claim 5, Orad discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 4.
Orad fails to disclose:
wherein the generated video information is in a HDMI format.
In analogous art, THOMPSON teaches:
wherein the generated video information is in a HDMI format (see paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Orad with the teaching as taught by THOMPSON in order to be able to present video content in the intended format, the preferred or defined format (e.g., highest quality format supported by the display device).
Regarding Claim 6, Orad in view of THOMPSON discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 2. THOMPSON further disclose wherein the communications interface comprises a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) (see paragraphs [0026 and 0046]).
Regarding Claim 7, Orad in view of THOMPSON discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 2. Orad further disclose including at least one of the command information and the command complies with the Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) protocol defined by a HDMI specification (see paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 8, Orad in view of THOMPSON discloses the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 7. Orad further disclose wherein the communications interface is in signal communication with an electronic display (see paragraph [0087]).
Claim(s) 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orad et al. Pub. No.: US 20170302876 A1 (Hereinafter “Orad”) in view THOMPSON et al. Pub. No.: US 20220060781 A1 (Hereinafter “THOMPSON”), further in view MIYAZAKI et al. Pub. No.: US 20180054644 A1 (Hereinafter “MIYAZAKI”).
Regarding Claim 9, Orad in view of THOMPSON disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 8.
Orad in view of THOMPSON fail to disclose:
wherein the electronic display is the root device and has at least one of a physical address of 0 and a logical address of 0.
In analogous art, MIYAZAKI teaches:
wherein the electronic display is the root device and has at least one of a physical address of 0 (see paragraphs [0063-0065]) and a logical address of 0 (see paragraphs [0063-0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Orad in view of THOMPSON with the teaching as taught by MIYAZAKI in order to easily acquire various kinds of information of each HDMI device included in an HDMI cluster and to perform utilization thereof for displaying or control operation on the basis of this database.
Regarding Claim 10, Orad in view of THOMPSON and MIYAZAKI disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 9. Orad further disclose a computer network interface for receiving, from a remote information store accumulated screen time
information indicative of the user's accumulated screen time on at least two electronic devices, and the screen constraint condition incorporates the accumulated
screen time information, wherein one of the at least two electronic devices is in communication with the communications interface (see paragraphs [0065] and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 11, Orad in view of THOMPSON and MIYAZAKI disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 10. Orad further disclose a computer network interface for receiving, from an information store, accumulated
screen time information indicative of the user's accumulated screen time on at least one electronic device, and the screen constraint condition incorporates the accumulated
screen time information (see paragraphs [0065] and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 12, Orad in view of THOMPSON and MIYAZAKI disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 11. Orad further disclose wherein the information store is a remote information store (see figs. 2 and 3: rule storage 250).
Regarding Claim 13, Orad in view of THOMPSON and MIYAZAKI disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 10. Orad further disclose the computer network interface comprises an IEEE 802.11 communications interface (see paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 14, Orad in view of THOMPSON and MIYAZAKI disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 13. Orad further disclose wherein the screen time display constraint condition defines a time the user is not permitted screen time (see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 15, Orad in view of THOMPSON and MIYAZAKI disclose the device as rejected in the rejection of claim 13. Orad further disclose wherein the screen time constraint condition defines a maximum quantity of screen time for the user (see paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424