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.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 sets forth a “recording medium storing a program.” However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the recording medium by stating that it includes a number of various mediums, e.g. ROM, EPROM, etc. (See paragraph [0043] of the originally filed specification).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a recording medium storing a program (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner respectfully notes that a claim drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrick et al. (Pub No US 2014/0359646) in view of McCoy et al. (Pub No US 2012/0209961). Hereinafter, referenced as Warrick and McCoy, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Warrick discloses an information processing method comprising:
performing control for correlating user information used by application software with a display device (e.g. device 140 and 146 in hotel room 102) that executes the application software (Paragraphs [0021] [0022] figure 1; integrating associated guest content list 116 with the hotel’s media system 100);
and operating in a first mode (e.g. guest) including performing control for cancelling the correlation between the user information and the display device when the display device is powered off (Paragraphs [0061] [0062] figure 7; detecting if a deletion event has occurred 630 when the connection established is broken, e.g. shut off device, and if so, deleting cached guest content 632);
However, it is noted that Warrick is silent to explicitly disclose maintaining the correlation between the user information and the display device when the display device shifts to a standby state.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor McCoy discloses maintaining the correlation between the user information and the display device when the display device shifts to a standby state (Paragraphs [0020] [0027] [0028] figures 1 and 2; when instructing a device to transition to stand-by mode 114, saving playback information, and resuming playback of the streams 124 when the device it is awakened).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warrick by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by McCoy, for the predictable result of greatly reduce lag time in resuming playback of the media stream from a stand-by mode (McCoy – paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 1; moreover, Warrick discloses operating in a second mode (Paragraphs [0024] figure 2; hotel mode, no guest device associated with the room 230) including: maintaining the correlation between the user information and the display device when the display device is powered off (Paragraphs [0060] [0061] figure 7; guest content is deleted when an event has occurred 630, e.g. shut off device; conversely, original hotel content 120 remains stored in place).
However, it is noted that Warrick is silent to explicitly disclose maintaining the correlation between the user information and the display device when the display device shifts to the standby state.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor McCoy discloses maintaining the correlation between the user information and the display device when the display device shifts to the standby state (Paragraphs [0020] [0027] [0028] figures 1 and 2; when instructing a device to transition to stand-by mode 114, saving playback information, and resuming playback of the streams 124 when the device it is awakened).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warrick by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by McCoy, for the predictable result of greatly reduce lag time in resuming playback of the media stream from a stand-by mode (McCoy – paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 2; moreover, Warrick discloses receiving selection of one operation mode among a plurality of operation modes including the first mode and the second mode (Paragraph [0033] figure 5; user interface 500 allowing a user to enter guest mode).
Regarding claim 4, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 1; moreover, Warrick discloses receiving a signal for powering off the display device from an information processing device coupled to the display device via a network (e.g. hotel staff device); and powering off the display device based on the signal (Paragraph [0061] figure 1; the connection may be broken when hotel staff disconnect the device 140, 146, etc. Wherein combinations and permutations of the conditions, e.g. disconnect, power off, etc. may be utilized to define the predetermined deletion requirement 630).
Regarding claim 5, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 4; moreover, Warrick discloses that the signal is transmitted based on information indicating a period in which the display device is used (Paragraph [0061] figure 1; the predetermined deletion event may occur when hotel staff a predetermined time limit is reached).
Regarding claim 7, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 1; moreover, Warrick discloses that the application software is application software for moving image viewing of a moving image distribution service for distributing a moving image via a network (Paragraphs [0061] [0062] figure 1; guess content list 116 and gest content cache 126),
and the user information includes at least one of an account name, a password, and a viewing history of the moving image of the moving image distribution service (Paragraph [0033] figure 5; user name and password).
Regarding claim 9, Warrick and McCoy disclose all the limitations of claim 9; therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Warrick and McCoy disclose all the limitations of claim 10; therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrick and McCoy further in view of Koizumi et al. (Pub No US 2017/0052750). Hereinafter, referenced as Koizumi.
Regarding claim 6, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 1; moreover, Warrick discloses powering off the display device (Paragraphs [0061] [0062] figure 7; detecting if a deletion event has occurred 630 when the connection established is broken, e.g. shut off device, and if so, deleting cached guest content 632). Moreover, McCoy discloses the display device shifting to the standby state (Paragraphs [0020] [0027] [0028] figures 1 and 2; instructing a device to transition to stand-by mode 114).
However, it is noted that Warrick and McCoy are silent to explicitly disclose the display device shifting to the standby state when first operation is performed on a power button of the display device while the display device is powered on; and powering off the display device when second operation more complicated than the first operation is performed on the power button.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Koizumi discloses the display device shifting to the standby state when first operation (e.g. a short-press operation on the power button 28 places device on sleep mode) is performed on a power button (e.g. power button 28) of the display device while the display device is powered on; and powering off the display device when second operation more complicated than the first operation is performed on the power button (Paragraph [0131]; turn off device when the power button 28 is held down for a predetermined period of time or longer, i.e. more complicated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warrick and McCoy by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Koizumi, for the predictable result of implementing the same button to perform multiple powering operations on the device, saving real state occupied by the control buttons.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrick and McCoy further in view of Li et al. (Pub No US 2019/0342630). Hereinafter, referenced as Li.
Regarding claim 8, Warrick and McCoy disclose the information processing method according to claim 2; however, it is noted that Warrick and McCoy are silent to explicitly disclose receiving an instruction to install new application software in the display device during the second mode; and installing the new application software in the display device.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Li discloses receiving an instruction to install new application software in the display device during the second mode (e.g. hotel management); and installing the new application software in the display device (Paragraphs [0011] [0015]; hotel management system pushing user preferences to the room device after the guest checks in).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warrick and McCoy by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Li, for the predictable result of allowing hotels to push user preferences to the room devices, so that a user does not have to spend effort on searching information displayed on an Internet television for information of his/her own preference (Li – paragraph [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424