CTNF 18/973,947 CTNF 81491 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. Claims 1, 10 and 15 recite: “… based on the second mode being selected, rotate the image received from the sources device and display the rotated image on the display. “. However independent claims 1, 10 and 15 fail to distinguish whether the rotated ‘image’ is the adjusted image received according to the changed EDID, or whether the rotated image is the initial image displayed on the electronic device. The following correction is suggested: “… based on the second mode being selected, rotate the adjusted image received from the sources device and display the rotated adjusted image on the display. “ Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiyama (US 2022/0060669) in view of Ishibashi (US Patent 8,659,666) . Regarding claim 1, Komiyama teaches an electronic device ( Fig. 1: 100 ) comprising: memory to store one or more instructions ( Fig. 2A: 115 ); and at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory to cause the electronic device ( Fig. 2A: 116 ) to: identify a usage environment of the electronic device based on receiving a request associated with displaying an image through a display of the electronic device (0085 lines 10-15), select one of a first mode or a second mode based on which the image is to be displayed, according to the identified usage environment of the electronic device (0007 lines 12-22 and 0008 lines 10-20), based on the second mode being selected, rotate the image received from the source device and display the rotated image on the display (0009 lines 6-22). However, Komiyama fails to teach based on the first mode being selected, change Extended Display Identification Data (EDID), transmit the changed EDID to a source device from which the image is received, receive an adjusted image according to the changed EDID from the source device, and display the adjusted image on the display. Ishibashi teaches based on the first mode being selected, change Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) (col. 17 lines 26-62), transmit the changed EDID to a source device from which the image is received, receive an adjusted image according to the changed EDID from the source device (col. 15 lines 49-66), and display the adjusted image on the display (col. 15 lines 62-66). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the image display modes of Komiyama with the EDID display of Ishibashi because this modification would have saved computational resources required to display images on several external display devices though changing the display mode of the image to best fit the usage capability of the display device. Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the same manner as claim 1, in which it is also taught in Komiyama to provide an operation method of an electronic device (0008 lines 1-8). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the image display modes of Komiyama with the EDID display of Ishibashi because this modification would have saved computational resources required to display images on several external display devices though changing the display mode of the image to best fit the usage capability of the display device. Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the same manner as claim 1, in which it is also taught in Komiyama to provide a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded therein one or more program executed by a processor of an electronic device for implementation of an operation method of the electronic device (0009 lines 1-11). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the image display modes of Komiyama with the EDID display of Ishibashi because this modification would have saved computational resources required to display images on several external display devices though changing the display mode of the image to best fit the usage capability of the display device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-15, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Said Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-2931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5pm. 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. 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. /Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/973,947 Page 2 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/973,947 Page 3 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/973,947 Page 4 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/973,947 Page 5 Art Unit: 2612
Prosecution Insights