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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“a display module configured to”, “a communication module configured to”, “a sensor module configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
[0054] discloses The display module 110 may include a display panel or a touch panel.
[0058] discloses The communication module 150 may include a wireless communication module (e.g., the wireless communication module 1892 of Fig. 18) (e.g., a cellular communication module, a short-range wireless communication module, or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) communication module) or a wired communication module (e.g., the wired communication module 1894 of Fig. 18) (e.g., a local area network (LAN) communication module or a power line communication (PLC) module).
[0066] discloses The sensor module 230may include, e.g., a gesture sensor, a gyro sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, a magnetic sensor, an acceleration sensor, a grip sensor, a proximity sensor, a color sensor, an infrared (IR) sensor, a biometric sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or an illuminance sensor.
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.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 1 recites “at least one processor electrically connected to the display module, the communication module, the sensor module, or the memory and configured to control an operation of the display module, the communication module, the sensor module, or the memory,”.
Processor is a CPU. A CPU's structure includes a control unit (CU), arithmetic logic unit (ALU), and registers as its main components. The control unit directs operations, the ALU performs calculations and logic, and registers are high-speed memory for temporary data storage. Other key elements are the cache memory for faster data access and a clock that synchronizes operations.
The word "or" generally means “one” or “the other”.
Claim language is unclear how processor is not electrically connected to memory.
Therefore, the claim structure relationship of elements is not clear.
Examiner suggests applicant further clarify the structure relationship of processor, display module, ….. memory.
Claims 2 - 8 have same issue because of claim dependency.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13, 15 - 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20230176705 A1, Assignee: LG, filed: 12/6/2021) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20140009394 A1, Assignee: LG).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses An electronic device, comprising:
a display module (Fig. 1, display unit 180) configured to display a mirroring image (Fig. 7A, [0125] a mirroring video 730) on a display window;
a communication module (Fig. 1, wireless communication unit) configured to perform communication with an external device; ([0143] The control unit 170 of the display device 100 may transmit a UIBC packet including no mouse cursor parameter to the terminal 500 according to the touch input received through the wireless communication unit 173 (S807).)
a sensor module (Fig. 1, a user input interface unit 150) configured to detect a user gesture of a user and generate a sensing signal corresponding to the user gesture detected;
a memory (Fig. 1, [0054] the storage unit 140) configured to allocate one or more buffer areas; and
at least one processor (Fig. 1, the control unit 170) electrically connected to the display module, (Fig. 1, display unit 180) the communication module (Fig. 1, wireless communication unit), the sensor module (Fig. 1, a user input interface unit 150), or the memory (Fig. 1, [0054] the storage unit 140) and configured to control an operation of the display module, the communication module, the sensor module, or the memory,
wherein the at least one processor: (Fig. 1, the control unit 170)
receives mirroring data from the external device through the communication module; ([0112] The display device 10 may display a mirroring video based on the received video signal (S603). [0140] The control unit 170 may convert the received first video signal into a signal with a resolution supported by the display device 100, and display the first mirroring video on the display unit 180 using the converted signal. [0137] [0111] [0140] [0154])
controls the display module to display the mirroring image in a first display area allocated in the display window using the mirroring data; (Fig. 7A Fig. 8, [0139] The control unit 170 of the display device 100 may display a first mirroring video on the display unit 180 based on the received first video signal (S803). [0140] [0112]) and
Kwon does not disclose “controls the display module to display an extended mirroring image in at least one extended display area allocated in the display window using the mirroring data according to the user gesture detected by the sensor module through interaction with the user”.
Lee discloses “controls the display module to display an extended mirroring image in at least one extended display area allocated in the display window using the mirroring data according to the user gesture detected by the sensor module through interaction with the user”. (Fig. 1B, Fig 5, Fig 6, Claim does not define the relationship of “one extended display area” and “a first display area”. Claim does not define what is “an extended mirroring image”. Examiner interprets Fig. 1B “102” is “extended mirroring image” under BRI. [0114] – [0119])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate extended mirroring image by Lee into device of Kwon. The suggestion/motivation would have been to extened display area. (Lee: Fig. 1B)
Regarding claims 2, 10, 17, Kwon and Lee disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to temporarily store new mirroring data corresponding to a new mirroring image displayed in the first display area according to the user gesture in a first buffer area provided in the memory. (Lee [0114] – [0119])
Regarding claims 3, 11, 18, Kwon and Lee disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to render the mirroring image in response to the user gesture to obtain the extended mirroring image. (Kwon Fig. 1, the control unit 170)
Regarding claims 4, 12, 19, Kwon and Lee disclose wherein the mirroring data includes meta information indicating a link or a coordinate and image information to be mirrored. (Kwon [0137] [0111] [0140] [0154])
Regarding claims 5, 13, 20, Kwon and Lee disclose wherein the at least one processor reconfigures the extended mirroring image displayed in the at least one extended display area using new mirroring data corresponding to a new mirroring image if the new mirroring image is displayed in the first display area. (Lee [0114] – [0119])
Regarding claim 6, Kwon and Lee disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to allocate the at least one extended display area adjacent to the first display area in an upper/lower or left/right direction according to the user gesture. (Lee [0111] – [0119])
Regarding claims 7, 15, Kwon and Lee disclose, wherein the at least one processor, if the user gesture is detected in the at least one extended display area, identifies input information mapped to a position where the user gesture is detected in the at least one extended display area and controls the communication module to transmit the input information identified to the external device. (Lee [0110] – [0118])
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected for same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for same reason as claim 1.
Alternately, claims 1, 9. 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20230176705 A1, Assignee: LG, filed: 12/6/2021) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent 10,474,322 B2, Assignee: LG,).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses An electronic device, comprising:
a display module (Fig. 1, display unit 180) configured to display a mirroring image (Fig. 7A, [0125] a mirroring video 730) on a display window;
a communication module (Fig. 1, wireless communication unit) configured to perform communication with an external device; ([0143] The control unit 170 of the display device 100 may transmit a UIBC packet including no mouse cursor parameter to the terminal 500 according to the touch input received through the wireless communication unit 173 (S807).)
a sensor module (Fig. 1, a user input interface unit 150) configured to detect a user gesture of a user and generate a sensing signal corresponding to the user gesture detected;
a memory (Fig. 1, [0054] the storage unit 140) configured to allocate one or more buffer areas; and
at least one processor (Fig. 1, the control unit 170) electrically connected to the display module, (Fig. 1, display unit 180) the communication module (Fig. 1, wireless communication unit), the sensor module (Fig. 1, a user input interface unit 150), or the memory (Fig. 1, [0054] the storage unit 140) and configured to control an operation of the display module, the communication module, the sensor module, or the memory,
wherein the at least one processor: (Fig. 1, the control unit 170)
receives mirroring data from the external device through the communication module; ([0112] The display device 10 may display a mirroring video based on the received video signal (S603). [0140] The control unit 170 may convert the received first video signal into a signal with a resolution supported by the display device 100, and display the first mirroring video on the display unit 180 using the converted signal. [0137] [0111] [0140] [0154])
controls the display module to display the mirroring image in a first display area allocated in the display window using the mirroring data; (Fig. 7A Fig. 8, [0139] The control unit 170 of the display device 100 may display a first mirroring video on the display unit 180 based on the received first video signal (S803). [0140] [0112]) and
Kwon does not disclose “controls the display module to display an extended mirroring image in at least one extended display area allocated in the display window using the mirroring data according to the user gesture detected by the sensor module through interaction with the user”.
Lee discloses “controls the display module to display an extended mirroring image in at least one extended display area allocated in the display window using the mirroring data according to the user gesture detected by the sensor module through interaction with the user”. (Fig. 7E, Claim does not define the relationship of “one extended display area” and “a first display area”. Claim does not define what is “an extended mirroring image”. Examiner interprets Fig. 7E “750” is “extended mirroring image” under BRI.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate extended display area by Lee into device of Kwon. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve efficiency. (Lee: Fig. 7E)
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected for same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for same reason as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14 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 11158028 B1 discloses mirroring image on abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN-NAN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 571-2722963. 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.
/CHUN-NAN LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights