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 12/3/2025
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 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 1-4, 9, 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20130113697 A1 to Chang in view of US Pub. No. 20190068894 A1 to Rathore and in further view of US Patent No. 11399120 B1 to Hong
As to claims 1, 9 and 13, Chang discloses a computer-implemented method for coupling one or more source devices to a plurality of DisplayPort sink devices, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a matrix management engine, capabilities of the plurality of DisplayPort sink devices (Chang Fig. 1-4, ¶0015, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0025, receiving, by the display control device 50, display identification data as the display control data, e.g. EDID, of each of the DisplayPort display devices 14);
determining, by the matrix management engine, a maximum common quality based on the capabilities of the plurality of DisplayPort sink devices (Chang Fig. 1-4, ¶0015, 0018, 0020, 0025, determining most common video resolution and the highest video refreshing frequency parameter among all of the display devices 14 may be selected for being combined into the display control data); and
providing, by the matrix management engine, capabilities based on the maximum common quality for presentation to the one or more source devices (Chang Fig. 1-4, ¶0015, 0018, 0020, 0025, 0030-0031, 0035, providing/transmitting the display control data, including the most common video resolution and the highest video refreshing frequency parameter among all of the display devices 14, to the computer system 12).
Chang does not expressly disclose that the one or more source devices is the one or more DisplayPort source devices; and
determining, by the matrix management engine, a maximum common quality supported by all of the plurality of sink devices based on the capabilities of the plurality of sink devices
Rathore discloses that the one or more source devices is the one or more DisplayPort source devices (Rathore Fig. 1, ¶0018, DisplayPort source device 102).
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 Chang by to that the one or more source devices is the one or more DisplayPort source devices as disclosed by Rathore. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide source devices using DisplayPort connections to provide content/video to DisplayPort sink devices thereby enhancing the user’s experience with different connection interfaces.
Chang and Rathore do not expressly disclose determining, by the matrix management engine, a maximum common quality supported by all of the plurality of sink devices based on the capabilities of the plurality of sink devices.
Hong discloses determining, by the matrix management engine, a maximum common quality supported by all of the plurality of sink devices based on the capabilities of the plurality of sink devices (Hong col. 7, lines 54-66, determining highest resolution supported by all the display devices, for example if one device supports 4k and 1080p and the second device supports 1080p, the highest common quality supported by all devices would be 1080p).
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 Chang and Rathore by determining, by the matrix management engine, a maximum common quality supported by all of the plurality of sink devices based on the capabilities of the plurality of sink devices as disclosed by Hong. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to determine a maximum common quality supported by all of the plurality of sink devices that improves the picture display quality enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 2, 10 and 14, Chang discloses wherein determining the maximum common quality includes comparing one or more of a supported bandwidth, a supported compression type, a supported lane count, a supported training pattern, a supported color space, a supported video resolution, a supported video timing, or a presence of audio support (Chang Fig. 1-4, ¶0015, 0018, 0020, 0025, most common video resolution and the highest video refreshing frequency parameter among all of the display devices and Hong col. 7, lines 54-66, highest resolution supported by all the display devices).
As to claims 3 and 15, Chang discloses further comprising, for each DisplayPort sink device of the plurality of DisplayPort sink devices: requesting DisplayPort Configuration Data (DPCD) and Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) from the DisplayPort sink device (Chang Fig. 1-4, ¶0015, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0025, receiving, by the display control device 50, display identification data as the display control data, e.g. EDID, of each of the DisplayPort display devices 14 and Rathore ¶0045, 0048, requesting DPCD and EDID); performing link training with the DisplayPort sink device based on the maximum common quality (Rathore ¶0028, 0043, 0045, 0048-0049, link training with the DisplayPort sink device at a maximum supported bandwidth); and transmitting placeholder data to the DisplayPort sink device(Rathore ¶0017, 0045, ¶0028, 0043, 0045, 0048-0049, transmitting placeholder DisplayPort data to the DisplayPort sink device).
As to claim 4, Rathore discloses associating a first DisplayPort source device of the one or more DisplayPort source devices with a first DisplayPort sink device of the plurality of DisplayPort sink devices to cause DisplayPort data from the first DisplayPort source device to be transmitted to the first DisplayPort sink device instead of the placeholder data (Rathore ¶0028, 0043, 0045, 0048-0049, 0058, 0060, 0063, the DFP device transmits DisplayPort data including the data from the DisplayPort source device to the DisplayPort sink device, instead of transmitting the placeholder DisplayPort data to the DisplayPort sink device).
As to claim 16, Rathore discloses one or more upstream components (Rathore ¶0018, 0030, upstream facing port device); wherein each upstream component includes an upstream facing port and a virtual DP sink engine (Rathore ¶0018, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0030-0031, 0045, upstream facing port device having a DisplayPort interface, upstream video/aux engine and sink emulation engine 124); and wherein the matrix management engine is further configured to: associate an upstream component having a first DisplayPort source device coupled thereto with a downstream component having a first DisplayPort sink device coupled thereto to cause DisplayPort data from the first DisplayPort source device to be transmitted to the first DisplayPort sink device instead of placeholder data (Rathore ¶0028, 0043, 0045, 0048-0049, 0058, 0060, 0063, the DFP device transmits DisplayPort data including the data from the DisplayPort source device to the DisplayPort sink device, instead of transmitting the placeholder DisplayPort data to the DisplayPort sink device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11, 12 and 17-20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-4, 9, 10 and 13-16 have been rejected.
Claims 5-8, 11, 12 and 17-20 are objected
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