DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment has been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 11 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. The claim recites “the spatial information” without antecedent basis.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al., US 2023/0117342.
1. Kwon teaches a display device [Figs. 1-3] comprising:
a memory [Fig. 3];
a sensor module configured to obtain location information of the display device [Figs. 1, 3, paras. 76, 77, 96, 97]; and
a controller configured to obtain information about a space to which the display device belongs from the obtained location information [location is identified, Figs. 2, 4, 6, 13, paras. 60, 90-92, 111, 112, 137], detect a user around the display device in the space [user is detected (or not) in device space, Figs. 7, 14, paras. 77, 140; also see paras. 108, 109, 111-115, 135-141] read usability analysis information about the display device from the memory based on the obtained space information and the detected user information [location and space data are stored and read, Figs. 4, 10, paras. 73, 77, 83, 86, 90-92, 123-125, 135-141], and control at least a part of a user interface currently being provided through a display to be changed based on the read usability analysis information [user interface (e.g. content groups) are controlled based on user and current space (location); usability (i.e. suitability) analysis determines what interface/apps/content is more likely to be used by a given user in a given space, e.g. children’s content in a child’s room, Figs. 2, 10, paras. 18, 59, 60-64, 108, 109, 111-114, 123-125, 135-141].
2. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify the space based on the obtained location information [Figs. 2, 4, 6, 13, paras. 60, 90-92, 111, 112, 137] and pre-written map information [stored sensing values, reference information, Figs. 3, 4, paras. 77, 90, 91, 120, 121].
3. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to detect an external device connectable in the space, and identify the space based on a type of the detected external device [space is identified based on external device, Figs. 2, paras. 59, 66, 67, 95-99].
4. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify the detected user by comparing the user information logged into the display device with the detected user information e.g. comparing image with established (logged) data, paras. 90, 91, 121].
5. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to assign a weight or predefine a priority to the space [e.g. alarm or image is prioritized in certain spaces, Fig. 10, paras. 29, 60-64, 123-125], and assign a weight or predefine a priority to a detectable user in the space [priority defined by user history, paras. 123].
6. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to perform usability analysis based on the weight or priority for the space and the user [usability (i.e. suitability of interface/content) is determined based on space/user and priority, Fig. 10, paras. 29, 60-64, 123-125].
9. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein when there are multiple detected users, the controller is configured to determine a main user in the corresponding space and control a part of the user interface currently being provided to be changed according to the determined main user [one user is given priority (designated main user) among users in same space, paras. 117, 119, 121-123].
10. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein when there are multiple detected users, the controller is configured to apply a group mode and control a part of the user interface currently being provided to be changed according to the group mode [handling multiple users (group mode), paras. 117, 119, 121-123].
11. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control a display mode to be changed based on the spatial information [display mode is based on current space, Figs. 2, 10, paras. 18, 59, 60-64, 108, 109, 111-114, 123-125, 135-141].
12. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein when the display mode is changed, the controller is configured to control the configuration and arrangement of the user interface differently according to the changed display mode [content group is configured and arranged based on display mode, Figs. 2, 10, paras. 18, 59, 60-64, 108, 109, 111-114, 123-125, 135-141].
15. Kwon teaches a method for operating a display device comprising:
detecting an event signal [sensor may detect user event, paras. 77];
obtaining current location information of the display device according to the detected event signal, and obtaining spatial information based on the obtained location information [location is identified, Figs. 2, 4, 6, 13, paras. 60, 90-92, 111, 112, 137];
identifying a user around the display device [user is detected (or not) in device space, Figs. 7, 14, paras. 77, 140; also see paras. 108, 109, 111-115, 135-141];
obtaining usability analysis information based on the obtained spatial information and the identified user information [location and space data are stored and read, Figs. 4, 10, paras. 73, 77, 83, 86, 90-92, 123-125, 135-141]; and
changing and outputting a part of a user interface currently being provided based on the obtained usability analysis information [user interface (e.g. content groups) are controlled based on user and current space (location); usability (i.e. suitability) analysis determines what interface/apps/content is more likely to be used by a given user in a given space, e.g. children’s content in a child’s room, Figs. 2, 10, paras. 18, 59, 60-64, 108, 109, 111-114, 123-125, 135-141].
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon as cited above in view of Craner, US 8,640,166.
7. Kwon is silent on displaying recently watched content on the interface. Craner teaches a display device wherein the controller is configured to control the user interface currently provided, including the home menu bar, to be partially changed so that the user interface further includes content information currently being played and content information according to a recently watched list in the corresponding space [recently tuned is shown at same time as currently played content, Fig. 10, 11, cols. 19-20, ll. 7-19].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, displaying recently tuned channels as a convenient way for the user to return to content they have already indicated an interest in, without interrupting currently tuned programming. Previously tuning a channel is a reliable indicator of the user’s desired content.
8. Kwon teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to control the arrangement or exposure priority of applications in the home menu bar in the user interface currently being provided to be differently changed based on the corresponding space information or the usability analysis information [Figs. 2, 10, paras. 18, 59, 60-64, 108, 109, 111-114, 123-125, 135-141].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon as cited above in view of Liu et al., US 10,019,962.
13. Kwon is silent on providing an interface based on detected moving speed of the display. Liu teaches a system wherein when the display device is moving, the controller is configured to detect a moving speed and determine whether or not to provide the user interface according to the detected moving speed [when display is moving at a speed, the display is modified with activity settings, altering the display, para. 72].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, noting the speed of e.g. a tablet in Kwon in order to adjust display settings. For example, if the user is moving through the house or yard quickly, the text size or brightness can be increased for better visibility.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon as cited above.
14. Kwon teaches a stand for the display, but is silent on a shaft and base. Official notice is taken that it was conventional and well-known to implement a display stand using a vertical shaft and attached base. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement Kwon’s stand by using the common structural elements recited, in order to provide stable support while taking up minimal space and allowing the display to be moved from room to room [see Kwon, para. 101].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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 Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424