DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed October 22, 2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 07/21/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the second buffer” when no second buffer has been previously introduced in the claim. It is unclear which second buffer is being referred to, and it is assumed a second buffer was introduced in claim 2
similar to claim 10.
Claims 5 and 7 both recite “interrupt request” without an article. It is preferable to recite “an” or “the” to ensure proper antecedent basis. It is assumed claim 5 recites “an interrupt request” and claim 7 recites “the interrupt request.” Claims 13 and 15 suffer from a similar deficiency.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected because of their dependency from rejected claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2023/0262286) in view of Barth (US 2009/0031156).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses:
receiving, by a first processor, a sync event from a first driver; […] after receiving the sync event (see at least figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound; paragraph 93, audio driver layer);
decoding, by the first processor, first data for a first function (see at least paragraph 93, audio decoding and sound play);
transferring, by the first processor, the decoded first data to a first buffer; […] after transferring the decoded first data to the first buffer (see at least paragraph 131 and 132, audio data through a buffer); and
wherein the sync event is used to indicate that a second processor needs to […] process second data for a second function (see at least figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound)
However, Li does not explicitly disclose, but Barth discloses:
the first processor waking up from a power saving mode; entering, by the first processor, the power saving mode; a second processor needs to wake up (see at least paragraph 22, each of the video processor and image processor and audio processor constitutes a Power Managed Component (PMC), and each PMC comprises at least one power saving mechanism including a low-power idle mode)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by adapting the teachings of Barth to include power saving idle mode for the processors. The combination allows for avoiding wasting of power particularly in portable electronic devices with considerations for how long the device can be used and how quickly the energy of the battery of the portable device is depleted (Barth ¶3,7).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Li as modified further discloses:
periodically receiving, by the first driver, a notification from a second driver, wherein the notification indicates that the second processor needs to wake up to process the second data for the second function; and periodically transmitting, by the first driver, the sync event to the first processor based on the notification; wherein the first processor wakes up periodically after receiving the sync event (see at least Li figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound; paragraph 93, audio driver layer; paragraph 74, image driver; paragraph 288; paragraph 294, processing video data, buffering data; Barth paragraph 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Barth for the reasons listed above.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Li further discloses:
wherein the first driver is an audio driver, the first data is audio data matched with image data, the second data is image data, and the notification is received by the first driver from the second driver when the image data needs to be played (see at least figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound; paragraph 93, audio driver layer; paragraph 74, image driver)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, and Li as modified further discloses:
periodically generating, by the second driver, a notice event when images need to be played, wherein the notice event is used for indicating the image data for the second function needs to be processed by the second processor; periodically transmitting, by the second driver, the notice event to the second processor; the second processor periodically waking up from the power saving mode after receiving the notice event; decoding, by the second processor, the second data; transferring, by the second processor, the decoded second data to the second buffer; and entering, by the second processor, the power saving mode after transferring the decoded second data to the second buffer (see at least Li figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound; paragraph 294, processing video data, buffering data, playing the processed video data and audio data simultaneously; Barth paragraph 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Barth for the reasons listed above.
Regarding claims 9-12, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 1-4 and are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2023/0262286), in view of Barth (US 2009/0031156), and further in view of Sudo (US 2023/0341894).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, and Li further discloses:
determining, by the first processor, the presence of the audio data that needs to be played, wherein the audio data is matched with the image data; and notifying, by the first processor, a front end to […] (see at least figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound)
However, Li and Barth do not explicitly disclose, but Sudo discloses:
disable the transmission of interrupt request (see at least paragraph 83, interrupt signal, sleep state, returns from sleep state to perform processing of data. Examiner’s Note: disabling the interrupt for sleep state for the processor when data needs to be processed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li and Barth by adapting the teachings of Sudo to include interrupts related to sleep state. The combination allows for reducing power consumption for a system (Sudo ¶83).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and Li further discloses:
wherein the step of determining, by the first processor, the presence of the audio data that needs to be played comprises: receiving, by the first processor, a first notice message from a host processor, wherein the first notice message is used for notifying the first processor to play the audio data matched with the image data; and receiving, by the first processor, the audio data (see at least figure 37; paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound; figure 3; paragraph 83, CPU)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. However, Li and Barth do not explicitly disclose, but Sudo discloses:
determining, by the first processor, there is no audio data matched with the image data that needs to be played; and notifying, by the first processor, the front end to enable the transmission of interrupt request (see at least paragraph 83, interrupt signal, sleep state, shifts to sleep state when processing ends. Examiner’s Note: enabling the interrupt for sleep state for the processor when no data needs to be processed)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, and Li as modified further discloses:
wherein the step of determining, by the first processor, there is no audio data matched with the image data that needs to be played comprises: receiving, by the first processor, a second notice message from a host processor, wherein the second notice message is used for notifying the first processor the end of playing audio data matched with the image data (see at least Li paragraph 285, video data and the audio data are processed separately at the same time; paragraph 287, after buffering the audio data the display apparatus plays the video data and audio data simultaneously to achieve synchronous sound; figure 3; paragraph 83, CPU; Sudo paragraph 83, interrupt signal, sleep state, shifts to sleep state when processing ends. Examiner’s Note: enabling the interrupt for sleep state for the processor when no data needs to be processed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li, Barth, and Sudo for the reasons listed above.
Regarding claims 13-16, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 5-8 and are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang discloses power saving associated with an image processor and an audio processor. Wu discloses synchronous processing for multi-channel audio and video.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights