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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per dependent claim 13, the use of term “driving mode” is indefinite, in the limitations of “determines a driving mode based on the user characteristic information; outputs the first user interface allowing a selection to be made as to whether to apply the driving mode; and applies the driving mode based on an input through which the selection is made to apply the driving mode.” Reading the claim as a whole, it seems to suggest that the driving mode refers to the mode in driving a vehicle, for example. However, that does not appear to be the case. Paragraphs 50, 161, 162, 163, 165, 167, for example, mention the term, but do not appear to use it as the ordinary meaning nor clearly define what it is. It seems as the use of the term “driving” is used more as an “operation” rather than the plain meaning of “driving.” Thus, using the term in claim would cause confusion and indefiniteness. The applicant can be his/her own lexicographer in using a term that may be contrary or inconsistent with an ordinary meaning, but it must be clearly defined in the specification. In this situation, there does not appear to be a clear definition in the specification (see MPEP 2173.05(a) “Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colsey et al., USPAT 8,104,066 B2.
Per independent claim 1, Colsey et al. discloses 1. An electronic device providing a user interface, comprising: a memory to store at least one instruction; and at least one processor executing the at least one instruction that is stored in the memory (FIG.1, Items 14, 30),
wherein the at least one processor: performs a communication connection with a user device based on a trigger input (col.3, line 57, “Upon sensing the Bluetooth signal, a query is made to determine some identifying element of the wireless device …”);
receives user characteristic information in association with the user device (col.3, line 60, “The user preferences can including … favorite channels, UI customization, parental controls and other setting”);
generates a personal setting option based on the user characteristic information (col.63_, “configure and customize the preferences for a device such as a television…”);
outputs a first user interface allowing a selection to be made as to whether to apply the personal setting option (col.4, line 1, “Where there are multiple wireless devices present, the user will be prompted to select one.”); and
outputs a second user interface to which the personal setting option is applied, based on an input through which the selection is made to apply the personal setting option (col., 4, line 10, “the preferences for that association will take effect.”).
Claim 14 is a method performed by the apparatus of claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al., USPAT PUB 2023/0019723 A1.
Per dependent claim 2, Colsey et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the first user interface is a preview user interface to which the personal setting option is previously applied. Regarding the missing limitations, Adams Ryan et al., while also disclosing the customizable TV experience, discloses the processing individual viewing options where the selected option requires displaying a preview on TV to allow the viewer to give the grant before processing further. In Paragraph 62, Adams Ryan et al. shows that the option includes viewing an adult theme content where the TV display the “warning message may be presented with one or more user-selectable option to present a content item” and also shows a preview of the segment “with pixelated segment”, e.g., to give the user the warning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated Adam Ryan et al.’s previous and the first selection ability to grant the play into the invention of Colsey et al, since Colsey et al. specifically pointed out that the “parental controls” (col.3, line 62) is the user setting of desire, and Adam Ryan et al.’s technology would have given the user ability to ensure that the content unsuitable can be stopped by a parent before further being played.
Per dependent claim 4, Colsey et al., discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the user characteristic information includes at least one of an output setting value of the user device, personal information about a user, and sensing information of the user device (col. 3, lines 35-62 including the Bluetooth RF sending information, and user personal information, etc.).
Per dependent claim 5, Colsey et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor: adjusts an output setting value among the user characteristic information based on a characteristic of the electronic device; and generates the personal setting option based on the adjusted output setting value (col.3, line 61, “UI customization” of the TV).
Per dependent claim 7, Colsey et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor changes the personal setting option based on a user input to change the personal setting option in the first user interface (col.3, line 53, “The user … to configure and customize the preference for … a television ..[as a] selection in the preferences setting will match the current preferences settings with the … wireless device” shows the changes in the wireless device settings will change that of the electronic device.).
Per dependent claim 8, Colsey et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor changes the personal setting option, based on a user input to change the user characteristic information in the user device (col.4, line 23, “The preferences remain until the user changes the preferences manually”).
Per dependent claim 9, Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the first user interface includes at least one of an image output interface to which the personal setting option is applied and a voice output interface to which the personal setting option is applied (as explained with respect to the rejection of claim 2 above, as Adams Ryan et al. discloses the “The warning message may be presented with one or more user-selectable options to present a content item: option 512 includes replacing segment 4 with pixelated segments” in Para [0062] showing a series of warning message along with the pixelated segment images.).
Per dependent claim 10, Colsey et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor: searches for a similar device connected to the user device (col.4, line 1, “multiple wireless devices” and line 10, “If the devices has a higher priority the preferences for that associate will take effect” shows the searching and selecting a higher priority one if available).
receives similar device characteristic information from the similar device (col.4, line 23, “The preferences remain until … another device with higher preferences priority is detected” shows that two devices with substantially similar (e.g., same displayed preferences) will keep the displayed personal setting the same.); and
generates the personal setting option applicable to the user interface based on the user
characteristic information and the similar device characteristic information (col., 4, line 12-14, shows the optional telephone calls to and from the TV shows that the personal setting will also include the similar device with a higher priority even though the other personal options may be substantially similar.).
Per dependent claim 11, Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 2, the rejection being incorporated here in, except for, that the at least one processor
determines an output mode based on the user characteristic information; and outputs the first user interface to which a preset personal setting option is applied for each output mode. Regarding this feature, in further explaining the parental guide feature of the TV, Adams Ryan et al. discloses that the first interface includes that the user presetting option is applied for each out mode (Para [0062], “Exemplary user interface 510 may include option to skip corresponding segment (e.g., violent segment)”; showing that violent segments are skipped for each output mode.).
Per dependent claim 13, Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al., discloses the electronic device of claim 2, as the rejection is being incorporated herein. The feature of “determines a driving mode based on the user characteristic information; outputs the first user interface allowing a selection to be made as to whether to apply the driving mode; and applies the driving mode based on an input through which the selection is made to apply the driving mode” is substantially similar to claim 2 if the term “driving” is interpreted to be “operation”, and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20 are for method performed by the apparatus of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al., USPAT PUB 2023/0019723 A1 as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Chen et al., USPAT 2012/0013556 A1.
Per dependent claim 3, Colsey et al., in view Adams Ryan et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 2, as explained above and further discloses that wherein the at least one processor: senses the user device within a predetermined distance based on the trigger input; and performs the communication connection with the user device, based on recognizing the user device. (col.3, lines 30-34 that discloses using the short range communication to sense and identify the user device).
However, Colsey et al., in view Adams Ryan et al. does not explicitly discloses the limitation that receives the trigger input including a user input to switch a screen-off state to a screen-on state. Nevertheless, the use of the proximity technology to trigger the TV (or display device) turning on and off was well known in the art as taught by Chen et al., in Paragraph [0007]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective time of the application to have incorporated Chen et al.’s auto turn-on based on proximity into the invention of Colsey et al and Adams Ryan et al., since Colsey explicitly taught the advantages of “automatically hand[ing] changing the user preference based on the proximity of the user” (col.3, line 15) and Chen et al. would have given the additional automation of activating the device when it is turned off.
Claim 16 is a method performed by the apparatus of claim 3, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al., USPAT PUB 2023/0019723 A1 as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Archibong et al., USPAT 9,667,584 B2.
Per dependent claim 12, Colsey et al. in view of Adams Ryan et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 2, as explained above and as the rejection incorporated herein, but does not explicitly disclose that the at least one processor transmits the personal setting option to at least one external device connected through a network, and wherein the at least one external device outputs a third user interface to which the personal setting option is applied.
Per the missing features, Archibong et al. discloses the socially connected smart TV’s that transmits the personal setting of a first user to the network, then the network transmits the setting to the other user devices where the user interfaces of other “socially connected” users are generated using the setting of the first user (col.1, lines 37+, “The social-networking system may generate a personalized set of content objects to display to a user, such as a newsfeed of aggregated stories of other users connected to the user.”; col.14, lines 47-62, “a user’s social connections …used to customize or personalize … a social TV viewing …[f]or example, … a user browsing the Electronic Programming Guide … may be presented with social data ..[related to] .. that his or her friends). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the socially-connection based customization of TV taught by Archibong et al. into Colsey et al. and Adams Ryan et al.’s TV system, since Colsey expressed the need to “adding “convenience in customization of ..a TV set ..[such as] . access to premium pay services etc., available channel line ups” (col,3, lines 21-26), and Archibong et al. would have provided the additional customization of the content and channels using the socially-connect other user’s data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230221838-A1 2023-07-13 Agrawal; Amit Kumar G06F3/1454 715/764
US-11032137-B2 2021-06-08 Park; Ji Hyun G06F3/04842 1/1
US-20170223218-A1 2017-08-03 Su; William H04N1/00506 1/1
US-10005657-B2 2018-06-26 Lim; Stephen G06F3/04842 1/1
US-9959728-B2 2018-05-01 True; Joseph A. H04W4/12 1/1
US-20030073411-A1 2003-04-17 Meade, William K. II G06F3/033 455/3.06
US-20210120300-A1 2021-04-22 Arling; Paul D. H04N21/4222 1/1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights