Detailed Action
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 8, 14-15, 19, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A).
Regarding claim 8, HIDEAKI discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining, from an individual display device, a particular candidate video output setting indicated as supported by the individual display device; determining that the particular candidate video output setting indicated as supported by the individual display device has not been verified to be actually supported by the individual display device; in response to the determination, verifying the particular candidate video output setting by; providing, for output on the individual display device, a video signal using the particular candidate video output setting; and determining whether the individual display device is able to display the video signal using the particular candidate video output setting (Figs. 1-3 and [0005], [0027], [0050], [0054]-[0070]; and Fig. 4-5 and [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0091]) The video display system 1 includes a DVD player 10 that functions as a video playback device and a monitor 30 that functions as a video display device. The control unit 16 of the DVD player 10 acquires EDID (Extended display identification data) from the display device 30, and reads the display setting including resolution and frame rate that can be supported by the display device included in the EDID. The setting information obtained from the EDID is information indicating the capability of the display device 30, but does not always match the display setting that can be actually displayed on the display device 30, and therefore a verification is required. A test video or an evaluation video is used to verify the display setting information, confirm the actual display capability of the display device 30, and ensure the display device 30 is able to display the video at the desired display settings).
Regarding claim 14, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein verifying the particular candidate video output setting further comprises: identifying a pre-existing video output setting set in advance by a user ([0055] and [0084]); and determining that the individual display device is not able to display the video signal using the particular candidate video output setting based on the particular candidate video output setting failing to match a dynamic range or a frame rate category of the pre-existing video output setting ([0058] and [0062]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 15, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein obtaining the particular candidate video output setting comprises obtaining Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) of the individual display device, the EDID including the particular candidate video output setting, wherein the particular candidate video output setting is a high-performance video output setting ([0050] and [0062]; EDID).
Regarding claim 19, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the particular candidate video output setting supported by the individual display device comprises at least one of a resolution, a frame rate, or a dynamic range (Fig. 3 and [0050], [0054], [0062]; resolution, frame rate).
Regarding claim 20, HIDEAKI discloses a system (Figs. 1-5) comprising: one or more computers, and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Figs. 1 and 4; The video display system 1 comprises a DVD player 10 including a control unit 16 and a storage unit 17 storing instructions shown in Figs. 2 and 5) comprising: obtaining, from an individual display device, a particular candidate video output setting indicated as supported by the individual display device; determining that the particular candidate video output setting indicated as supported by the individual display device has not been verified to be actually supported by the individual display device; in response to the determination, verifying the particular candidate video output setting by providing, for output on the individual display device, a video signal using the particular candidate video output setting; and determining whether the individual display device is able to display the video signal using the particular candidate video output setting (Figs. 1-3 and [0005], [0027], [0050], [0054]-[0070]; and Fig. 4-5 and [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0091]) The video display system 1 includes a DVD player 10 that functions as a video playback device and a monitor 30 that functions as a video display device. The control unit 16 of the DVD player 10 acquires EDID (Extended display identification data) from the display device 30, and reads the display setting including resolution and frame rate that can be supported by the display device included in the EDID. The setting information obtained from the EDID is information indicating the capability of the display device 30, but does not always match the display setting that can be actually displayed on the display device 30, and therefore a verification is required. A test video or an evaluation video is used to verify the display setting information, confirm the actual display capability of the display device 30, and ensure the display device 30 is able to display the video at the desired display settings).
Regarding claim 25, TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 20, wherein verifying the particular candidate video output setting further comprises: identifying a pre-existing video output setting set in advance by a user ([0055] and [0084]); and determining that the individual display device is not able to display the video signal using the particular candidate video output setting based on the particular candidate video output setting failing to match a dynamic range or a frame rate category of the pre-existing video output setting ([0058] and [0062]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 26, TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 25, wherein obtaining the particular candidate video output setting comprises obtaining Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) of the individual display device, the EDID including the particular candidate video output setting, wherein the particular candidate video output setting is a high-performance video output setting ([0050] and [0062]; EDID).
Regarding claim 28, TOMOHIRO discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Figs. 1 and 4; The video display system 1 comprises a DVD player 10 including a control unit 16 and a storage unit 17 storing instructions shown in Figs. 2 and 5) comprising: obtaining, from an individual display device, a particular candidate video output setting indicated as supported by the individual display device; determining that the particular candidate video output setting indicated as supported by the individual display device has not been verified to be actually supported by the individual display device; in response to the determination, verifying the particular candidate video output setting by; providing, for output on the individual display device, a video signal using the particular candidate video output setting; and determining whether the individual display device is able to display the video signal using the particular candidate video output setting (Figs. 1-3 and [0005], [0027], [0050], [0054]-[0070]; and Fig. 4-5 and [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0091]) The video display system 1 includes a DVD player 10 that functions as a video playback device and a monitor 30 that functions as a video display device. The control unit 16 of the DVD player 10 acquires EDID (Extended display identification data) from the display device 30, and reads the display setting including resolution and frame rate that can be supported by the display device included in the EDID. The setting information obtained from the EDID is information indicating the capability of the display device 30, but does not always match the display setting that can be actually displayed on the display device 30, and therefore a verification is required. A test video or an evaluation video is used to verify the display setting information, confirm the actual display capability of the display device 30, and ensure the display device 30 is able to display the video at the desired display settings).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 10-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A) in view of TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A).
Regarding claim 10, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR). However, TOMOHIRO discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the particular candidate video output setting comprises a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal with a variable refresh rate), and wherein determining whether the individual display device is able to perform display comprises: switching in sequence among a plurality of verification rates determined in advance for the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal can be switched in sequence among a plurality of predetermined refresh rate); and determining whether a display abnormality occurs while switching between the plurality of verification rates (e.g., Fig. 3; display abnormality occurs when a first refresh rate of one display is switched to a second refresh rate and the second refresh rate does not match the refresh rate of the other displays). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from TOMOHIRO to the display device of HIDEAKI. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
Regarding claim 11, HIDEAKI in view of TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, TOMOHIRO discloses wherein the plurality of verification rates comprise at least a maximum refresh rate and a minimum refresh rate of a usage rate range corresponding to the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; refresh rate has a range from 60Hz to 75Hz).
Regarding claim 21, HIDEAKI discloses the system of claim 20, but does not disclose wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR). However, TOMOHIRO discloses a system, wherein the particular candidate video output setting comprises a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal with a variable refresh rate), and wherein determining whether the individual display device is able to perform display comprises: switching in sequence among a plurality of verification rates determined in advance for the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal can be switched in sequence among a plurality of predetermined refresh rate); and determining whether a display abnormality occurs while switching between the plurality of verification rates (e.g., Fig. 3; display abnormality occurs when a first refresh rate of one display is switched to a second refresh rate and the second refresh rate does not match the refresh rate of the other displays). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from TOMOHIRO to the display device of HIDEAKI. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
Regarding claim 22, HIDEAKI in view of TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 21, TOMOHIRO discloses wherein the plurality of verification rates comprise at least a maximum refresh rate and a minimum refresh rate of a usage rate range corresponding to the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; refresh rate has a range from 60Hz to 75Hz).
7. Claims 12, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A) in view of TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A) and further in view of KATO (US 20180007311 A1).
Regarding claim 12, HIDEAKI in view of TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein switching in sequence among the plurality of verification rates comprises alternately switching between a first verification rate and a second verification rate in a switching cycle of a predetermined duration. However, KATO discloses wherein switching in sequence among the plurality of verification rates comprises alternately switching between a first verification rate and a second verification rate in a switching cycle of a predetermined duration (e.g., Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0081], [0095], [0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of HIDEAKI in view of TOMOHIRO. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
Regarding claim 18, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: obtaining Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) of the individual display device, the EDID including the particular candidate video output setting ([0050] and [0054]), HIDEAKI discloses analyzing the EDID to determine whether the individual display device is compatible with a refresh rate, but does not disclose a variable refresh rate (VRR). However, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method, obtaining Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) of the individual display device, the EDID including the particular candidate video output setting ([0005] and [0027]; EDID including video output setting, e.g., refresh rate), analyzing the EDID to determine whether the individual display device is compatible with a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Fig. 3; variable refresh rate from 60Hz to 75Hz); and extracting one or more rate range candidates within a range of refresh rates supported by the individual display device as indicated in the EDID (e.g., Fig. 3; a range of refresh rate from 60Hz to 75Hz). As another reference, KATO discloses the computer-implemented method, obtaining Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) of the individual display device, the EDID including the particular candidate video output setting ([0090]; EDID including video output setting, e.g., refresh rate), analyzing the EDID to determine whether the individual display device is compatible with a variable refresh rate (VRR([0040]; variable refresh rate); and extracting one or more rate range candidates within a range of refresh rates supported by the individual display device as indicated in the EDID ([0040]; variable refresh rate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from TOMOHIRO and KATO to the display device of HIDEAKI for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 23, HIDEAKI in view of TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein switching in sequence among the plurality of verification rates comprises alternately switching between a first verification rate and a second verification rate in a switching cycle of a predetermined duration. However, KATO discloses wherein switching in sequence among the plurality of verification rates comprises alternately switching between a first verification rate and a second verification rate in a switching cycle of a predetermined duration (e.g., Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0081], [0095], [0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of HIDEAKI in view of TOMOHIRO for the same reason above.
8. Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A) in view of JUENGER (US 7898535 B2).
Regarding claim 13 and claim 24, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8 and the system of claim 20, but does not disclose discloses wherein the video signal provided for output comprises a video of a content that changes in a predetermined pattern for a predetermined period of time to verify whether the display device refreshes frame images at an intended update timing. However, JUERDER (Figs. 2-3) discloses wherein the video signal provided for output comprises a video of a content that changes in a predetermined pattern for a predetermined period of time to verify whether the display device refreshes frame images at an intended update timing (col. 7, lines 43-47, col. 7, line 58-col. 8, line 1, col. 10, lines 19-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from JUERDER to the display device of TOMOHIRO. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
9 Claims 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A) in view of MORIIE (US 20170353759 A1).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 27, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8 and system of claim 20, but does not disclose wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise at least one setting related to an audio signal to be output to the display device in addition to the video signal. However, MORIIE discloses a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1-8), wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise at least one setting related to an audio signal to be output to the display device in addition to the video signal (Figs. 2-4; audio and video signals), and wherein verifying whether the display device is able to perform display comprises: outputting the audio signal with a predetermined pattern; and receiving a response from a user indicating whether the audio signal is properly reproduced by a speaker of the display device (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-8, audio signal with a predetermined format; Figs. 2 and 4, audio signal is reproduced by a speaker 400 of the display device 100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from MORIIE to the display device of HIDEAKI. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with an improved audio and video quality.
10. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A) in view of SONOBE (US 20090160883 A1).
Regarding claim 29, HIDEAKI discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, but does not disclose a display checking screen as claimed. However, SONOBE (Figs. 3-10) discloses a computer-implemented method, further comprising: presenting a display checking screen to a user for a predetermined period of time (Fig. 3 and [0039]; internal display device 17); and determining whether the individual display device is able to display the video signal based on an input from the user through the display checking screen within the predetermined period of time (Figs. 5-8 and [0061]-[0064], [0072], and [0076]-[0092]; internal display device 17 and individual display device 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SONOBE to the display device of HIDEAKI. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with an improved video quality.
Regarding claim 30, HIDEAKI in view of SONOBE discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 29, SONOBE discloses further comprising: in response to the predetermined period of time expiring without receiving the input from the user through the display checking screen, determining that the individual display device is not able to display the video signal using the particular candidate video output setting (Figs. 5-9; the display setting of the internal display device 17 is input by the user, if it does not match the display setting of the external display device 20, the external display device 20 is not able to display a video using EDID setting). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SONOBE to the display device of HIDEAKI for the same reason above.
Response to Arguments
11. Regarding claims 1, 20, and 28, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. In view of amendments, the references of HIDEAKI (JP2009105798A) and SONOBE (US 20090160883 A1) have been used for new ground rejection.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. 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.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights