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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3/4/2026.
Claims 5 and 19 have been cancelled, claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 21 recite tangible components, thus falling the one of the four statutory classes; i.e. machine. Claims 11-14 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claims 15-18 and 20 call for non-transitory computer readable-medium, which is a tangible article and thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 11 recites:
identifying a power consumption reduction level selected by a user among a plurality of power consumption reduction levels;
identifying power consumption reduction amounts for each of the plurality of image quality processing elements corresponding to the selected level, based on image quality processing information for each of a plurality of power consumption reduction levels stored in a memory, the image quality processing information comprising, for each of the plurality of power consumption levels, a plurality of image quality processing elements respectively corresponding to a plurality of image quality processing operations, wherein the plurality of image quality processing elements comprise driving processing, contrast ratio processing, motion processing, noise processing, sharpness processing, and color processing;
identifying a final power consumption reduction amount corresponding to the selected level by combining the power consumption reduction amounts of each of the plurality of image quality processing elements;
identifying a user reward based on the identified final power consumption reduction amount;
and based on a viewing time being equal to or greater than a predetermined reference viewing time, displaying information about the identified user reward.
The limitations of identifying a user reward based on the identified power consumption amounts under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and it falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, does not recite any additional elements to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, device claim 1 and computer readable medium claim 15 are rejected under the same rationale as method claim 11 rejected above, as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as above. In addition claims 1 recites memory for storing, recited at a high level of generality, and claims 1 and 15 recite a processor for identifying and a display for displaying, these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claims 1 and 15 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that they amount no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory, processor and display, alone or in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, there are no additional elements that amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-18 and 20-21, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Claims 2-4, 8-9, 12-14, 16-18 further recite a user interface (UI) for selecting, which is recited at high level of generality, such that they amount no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20-21 are allowable over prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record, Raveendran (KR 20100137007) teaches electronic device with a display configured to operate at one of a plurality of low-power modes. The display assess available power, selects a mode from a plurality of modes, and adjusts image quality to achieve a specific power savings amount tied to that level. Raveendran fail to disclose or suggest “identify a final power consumption reduction amount corresponding to the selected level by combining the power consumption amounts corresponding of each of the plurality of image quality processing elements” where the plurality of image quality elements include “driving processing, contrast ratio processing, motion processing, noise processing, sharpness processing and color processing”. Kim (KR 20160109487) teaches incentive information based on the actual power reduction amount, due to the power saving operation of the electrical product and the power reduction amount. The combination of Raveendran and Kim fail to teach “based on a viewing time being equal or greater than a predetermined reference viewing time, control the display to display information about the identified user reward and the identified final consumption reduction amount”
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides an improvement to a display by displaying a reward based on viewing times. The Examiner wants to point out that the concept of providing a reward based on viewing times, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and it falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, under prong one, of step 2A. The additional elements of a display for displaying the reward does not improve the display per se, the claim merely invokes the computer/display as a tool to perform the abstract idea, under prong two of step 2A. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory, processor and display, alone or in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, under 2B.
The Examiner wants to point out that the instant claims are not similar in scope to the Core Wireless because the court case pertained to solving a technical problems through technical solutions. See id. In particular, the court in Core Wireless found that claims directed to a computing device that 1) displayed a first interface portion with first accessible data (e.g., "the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications") and 2) displayed a second interface portion that can be reached from the first interface portion and that provided a limited list of data from the list of data available in the first interface portion (e.g., "additionally being configured to display... an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications... wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state."). The Court specifically noted that the claims in Core Wireless were directed to "an improved user interface for computing devices," which is not an abstract idea but instead is an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens. Unlike, the current case which pertains to identifying a user reward based on the identified power consumption amounts and the additional elements of a display, memory and processor to accomplish a business function will not render the claims eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights