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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims Status
Claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0313419 A1 to KIM et al in view of US 2013/0176204 A1 to Higuchi et al.
As to claim 1, KIM discloses a video display device comprising: a tuner configured to receive a digital broadcast signal (see fig.1-2; page.4, ¶0082¶); first interface circuitry configured to communicate with an external device (see fig.2 and 3; page.4, ¶0076-¶0077, ¶0081-¶0082); second interface circuitry configured to communicate with a smart phone through a network (see fig.2 and 3; page.4, ¶0082 and fig.8; page.6,¶0107); a display configured to display a video (see fig.2-3; page.5,¶0086); a memory configured to store a program (see fig.2,el.160; page.5,¶0091; discloses a processor, when executing the program, configured to, when detecting a connection of the external device the external device to the first interface circuitry, or a powering on of the external device already connected to the first interface circuitry is turned on (see fig.3;page.5,¶0097 & see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
KIM fails explicitly discloses when detecting a connection of the external device the external device, control the second interface circuitry to communicate with the smart phone to start a cooperative operation with the external device.
Higuchi discloses when detecting a connection of the external device the external device, control the second interface circuitry to communicate with the smart phone to start a cooperative operation with the external device (see fig.1 and 5; page.4,¶0060, ¶0063).
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 KIM with the teaching as taught by Higuchi in order to perform a functional operation of the external device specified by a request sent from the portable terminal.
As to claim 2, KIM further discloses wherein the first interface circuitry is a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) interface (fig.2-3, page.4,¶0081).
As to claim 3, KIM further discloses wherein the first interface circuitry is a USB interface (fig.2-3, page.4,¶0081).
As to claim 4, KIM further discloses wherein the first interface circuitry is a short-range wireless communication interface (fig.2-3, page.4,¶0082).
As to claim 5, KIM further discloses wherein the second interface circuitry is a wireless LAN interface (fig.2-3, page.4,¶0082).
As to claim 6, KIM in view Higuchi further discloses wherein a connection of the external device to the video display device, or the powering on of the external device detected by the processor via the first interface circuitry, includes at least a device ID information of the external device (see KIM fig.3; page.5,¶0097 and see Higuchi page.4,¶0060).
As to claim 9, KIM further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the smart phone via the second interface circuitry, an operation instruction accepted by the smart phone; and relay the operation instruction to the external device via the first interface circuitry(see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
As to claim 10, KIM further discloses wherein the cooperative operation with the external device starts by initiating an application software on the smart phone configured to accept a user operation for the external device (see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
As to claim 11, KIM discloses a cooperative control method for a video display device configured to connect an external device and a smart phone configured to remotely operate the external device (see fig.2 and 3; page.4, ¶0076-¶0077), the cooperative control method comprising: receiving a digital broadcast signal by a tuner(see fig.1-2; page.4, ¶0082); detecting, via first interface circuitry, a connection of the external device is connected to the video display device, or a powering on of the external device already connected to the video display device is turned on; and carrying out communication with the remote controller via second interface circuitry to start a cooperative operation with the external device (see fig.3;page.5,¶0097 & see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
KIM fails explicitly discloses detecting a connection of the external device is connected to the video display device and carrying out communication with the smart phone to start a cooperative operation with the external device.
Higuchi discloses detecting a connection of the external device is connected to the video display device and carrying out communication with the smart phone to start a cooperative operation with the external device (see fig.1 and 5; page.4,¶0060, ¶0063).
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 KIM with the teaching as taught by Higuchi in order to perform a functional operation of the external device specified by a request sent from the portable terminal.
As to claim 12, KIM further discloses receiving, from the smart phone via the second interface circuitry, an operation instruction accepted by the smart phone; and relaying the operation instruction to the external device via the first interface circuitry(see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
As to claim 13, KIM further discloses wherein the cooperative operation with the external device starts by initiating an application software on the smart phone configured to accept a user operation for the external device (see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0313419 A1 to KIM et al in view of US 2013/0176204 A1 to Higuchi et al, and further in view of US 10,548,003 B2 to Lee et al.
As to claim 7, KIM and Higuchi fail explicitly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to refer to a relay table generated beforehand, and select the smart phone out of candidates of smart phones as registered in association with the external device detected as connected to the video display device in the relay table.
Lee discloses wherein the processor is further configured to refer to a relay table generated beforehand, and select the smart phone out of candidates of smart phones as registered in association with the external device detected as connected to the video display device in the relay table (see fig.15, col.18,ll.56- col.19,ll.7 and col.4,ll.18-20).
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 KIM and Higuchi with the teaching as taught by Lee in order to making it possible to automatically make a connection request to the external device without requiring user intervention.
As to claim 8, Lee further discloses wherein the relay table is generated according to a request from each of the candidates of the smart phones, wherein the relay table includes a candidate of an external device associated with a candidate of the smart phone of a request source, and wherein the candidate of the external device is configured to be connected to the video display device (see fig.15, col.18,ll.56- col.19,ll.7 and col.4,ll.18-20).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights