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 .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 non-statutory 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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal 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 non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of US 12,170,804 B2.
Claims 1-2 and 5-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 8-10 of US 11,770,573 B2.
Claims 1,6-11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-8 of US 11,445,233 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, if allowed would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See also MPEP § 804.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0313419 A1 to KIM 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); and a processor, when executing the program, configured to, when detecting information showing that the external device is connected to the first interface circuitry, or information showing that the external device connected to the first interface circuitry is turned on, control the second interface circuitry to communicate with the smart phone to start a cooperative operation with the external device (see fig.3; page.5,¶0097 and see fig.20, page.10,¶0166-0167).
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 further discloses wherein the information showing that the external device is connected to the video display device, or the information showing that the external device is turned on, which is detected by the processor by the communication via the first interface circuitry, includes at least a device ID information of the external device (see fig.3; page.5,¶0097).
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, information showing that the external device is connected to the video display device, or information showing that the external device connected to the video display device is turned on; and carrying out communication with the smart phone 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).
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).
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 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 10,548,003 B2 to Lee et al.
As to claim 7, KIM fails 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 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
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