DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of 17/686165, PCT/KR2019/016944, KR10-2019-0119066 filed 3/3/2022, 12/3/2019 and 9/26/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 is substantially similar to Claim 1 of 12,159,603 except it includes a master/slave relationship and it is missing the limitation “the UART switch and the Ethernet switch are not connected to each other directly.” For the master/slave relationship, see below as to Jo (US Pub. 2018/0046424). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Claim 1 of the patent to include the master slave relationship because UART is a known communication scheme for a master/slave daisy chain, see Jo, paras. 47-48. Claim 8 has the same relationship with Claim 8 of the patent as Claim 1 has. The dependent claims are the same claims as those of the patent, again except for the master/slave relationship.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US Pub. 2017/0134690) in view of Maruta (US Pub. 2011/0299538), and further in view of Jo (US Pub. 2018/0046424).
With respect to Claim 1, Masumoto teaches an electronic apparatus communicating with a display apparatus including a plurality of display modules, the electronic apparatus comprising: (Fig. 11, paras. 129-131; IP address allocator communicates with Displays A-D.)
wherein the processor is configured to: configure a network with an external electronic apparatus based on the pre-allocated Internet Protocol (IP) address, (A processor will be taught later. para. 41; image transmission server may be directly connected to displays or there may be a network relay such as a switching hub or network router in-between. paras. 130-131, 136- 137; DHCP in allocator allocates IP addresses to displays. See also Maruta, Fig. 1, paras. 46-47, 52; Switch forms connection with external terminal over WAN using IP address of a virtual port.)
based on a signal for setting a screen of a master display module (A master/slave setup will be taught later. para. 138, 142; control device sends command to specific display to cause display to display data. See also Fig. 1, paras. 39, 45; displays receive signal and are configured to display portion of image based on configuration.)
the signal for setting the screen to the master display module, (para. 138, 142; control device sends command to specific display to cause display to display data. See also Fig. 1, paras. 39, 45; displays receive signal and are configured to display portion of image based on configuration.)
based on a signal for allocating an IP address of the master display module connected to the port of the Ethernet switch being received from the external electronic apparatus, (paras. 136-138; IP address allocator allocates IP addresses. Control device commands the display of the IP addresses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to have the control device command the DHCP to assign IP addresses in order to have the control device define all the configuration information for the displays.)
store information about matching the master display module connected to the port of the UART switch with the IP address included in the signal, (paras. 130-131, 136- 137; DHCP in allocator allocates IP addresses to displays. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to store the assignment so that the device can be communicated with at a later point in time. See also Maruta, para. 56; table storing port numbers in association with IP addresses in order to perform packet transmission.)
and wherein the master display module allocates different IDs to the plurality of slave display modules. (para. 136; IP addresses allocated to all pieces of equipment. A person of ordinary skill would understand the IP addresses to be unique to prevent collisions in messaging. Further, Fig. 11 provides an exemplary system in which the IP addresses are different.)
But Masumoto does not explicitly teach an ethernet switch.
Maruta, however, does teach an Ethernet switch; (Fig. 1, paras. 3, 46; L3 switch using Ethernet.)
and a processor connected to the Ethernet switch (para. 56; processing unit)
and including a virtual Ethernet port to which an IP address is pre-allocated, (para. 52; virtual port and IP address assigned to the virtual port. Para. 55; WAN communication has a global address. Para. 62; IP lease request from a DHCP client to assign an IP address. Therefore, it would have been obvious to allocate an address to the virtual port to ensure external communication prior to setting up a local network to receive external commands. See also Masumoto, paras. 130-131; DHCP allocator.)
connected to a port of the Ethernet switch being received from the external electronic apparatus through the network, control the Ethernet switch to transmit (para. 52; physical port has corresponding virtual port VP0 for communicating with the WAN. Paras. 46-47; switch bridges WAN and private LAN and allows external server to communicate with device terminals TM1-TMn in the private network.)
control the (UART) switch to transmit the signal for allocating the IP address through the port of the UART switch, (A UART will be taught later. Fig. 1, paras. 46, 52; each terminal has a corresponding port, virtual port, and IP address)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Masumoto with the ethernet switch in order to provide connection between an internal LAN and an external WAN. (Maruta, para. 46. Further, Examiner notes that Masumoto explicitly posits a switching hub between an image transmission server and the display devices, see Masumoto para. 41.)
But modified Masumoto does not explicitly teach a universal asynchronous receiver-transmitter.
Jo, however, does teach identify a port of a universal asynchronous receiver-transmitter (UART) switch of the electronic apparatus to transmit the signal for allocating the IP address based on information on a port included in the signal for allocating the IP address, (paras. 38, 47-48; external device controls multi-display system using a UART communication scheme. With respect to identifying a port, see Maruta, Fig. 1, paras. 46, 52; switch connection to each terminal has a corresponding port, virtual port, and IP address, which means that an IP address is assigned to a virtual port associated with a physical port, which suggests port information in an IP allocation to associate the two.)
wherein the display apparatus comprises a plurality of slave display modules and the master display module connected in series, (Fig. 2, paras. 37-38, 48; UART control scheme where commands are sent to a master display device of a daisy chain. para. 173; other display devices are slaves.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Masumoto with the UART switch in order to enable communication between a device and a multi-display system that uses a serial connection scheme. (Jo, Fig. 2, paras. 37-38)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Masumoto teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, and Maruta also teaches wherein the Ethernet switch is configured to receive the signal for setting the screen from the external electronic apparatus, and wherein the processor is further configured to receive the signal for setting the screen from the Ethernet switch through the virtual Ethernet port. (para. 52; virtual port VP0 for communicating with the external network. Para. 56; NAPT processing unit performs bidirectional packet transmission, which means the processing unit receives the signal in order to convert it to the private address for the LAN.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent Claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 3, modified Masumoto teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, and Maruta also teaches wherein the UART switch is configured to transmit the signal for allocating the IP address to the master display module for allocating the IP address through a port connected to the master display module for allocating the IP address. (Fig. 1, paras. 46, 52; each terminal has a corresponding port, virtual port, and IP address)
The same motivation to combine as the independent Claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 6, modified Masumoto teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, and Maruta also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the signal for setting the screen of the display apparatus from the external electronic apparatus through the virtual Ethernet port in a state in which IP address allocation of the plurality of display modules is completed, and based on the IP address included in the signal for setting the screen, perform setting the screen of the master display module corresponding to the IP address among the plurality of display modules. (para. 62; lease of IP address, which suggests a renewal of the IP address when the lease is about to expire. Paras. 17-20; receiving a new private address when reconnecting a device or conversely being reassigned the previous private address, which is a setting after allocation has been completed. para. 107; renewal of NAPT table.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent Claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Masumoto teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, and Maruta also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to configure a local network with the external electronic apparatus through the virtual Ethernet port. (Fig. 1, para. 46; switch connected to LAN. Para. 17, 62; DHCP to allocate IP addresses. See also Masumoto paras. 130-131, 136- 137; DHCP in allocator allocates IP addresses to displays.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent Claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claims 9-10, 13, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-3, 6, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US Pub. 2017/0134690) in view of Maruta (US Pub. 2011/0299538), in view of Jo (US Pub. 2018/0046424) and further in view of Pang (US Pub. 2016/0087967).
With respect to Claim 4, modified Masumoto teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, and Masumoto also teaches and receive, from the display apparatus, the signal for setting the screen of the master display module transmitted from the external electronic apparatus to the display apparatus through the network. (para. 138, 142; control device sends command to specific display to cause display to display data. See also Fig. 1, paras. 39, 45; displays receive signal and are configured to display portion of image based on configuration. With respect to receiving a signal for setting the screen, see para. 108; display may request frame number or time stamp.)
But modified Masumoto does not explicitly teach P2P GO.
Pang, however, does teach wherein the processor is further configured to operate as a peer-to-peer (P2P) group owner (GO) to configure the network with the display apparatus and the external electronic apparatus, (para. 68; Group owner of a P2P network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Masumoto with the P2P group owner in order to allow for P2P communication to lower the communication burden on a routing device. (Pang, paras. 3-5)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Matsumoto teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 4, and Maruta also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, based on the signal for allocating the IP address of the master display module connected to the port of the Ethernet switch being received from the display apparatus, (Para. 62; IP lease request from a DHCP client to assign an IP address.)
and control the UART switch to transmit the signal for allocating the IP address through the port of the UART switch. (UART will be taught later. para. 46, 52, 56; transmission to a terminal in the internal LAN.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent Claim applies here.
And Jo also teaches identify the port to transmit the signal for allocating the IP address among a plurality of ports of the UART switch of the electronic apparatus based on the information on the port to transmit the signal for allocating the IP address included in the signal for allocating the IP address, (paras. 38, 47-48; external device controls multi-display system using a UART communication scheme. With respect to identifying a port, see Maruta, Fig. 1, paras. 46, 52; switch connection to each terminal has a corresponding port, virtual port, and IP address, which means that an IP address is assigned to a virtual port associated with a physical port, which suggests port information in an IP allocation to associate the two.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent Claim applies here.
With respect to Claims 11-12, they are substantially similar to Claims 4-5, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449