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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaysman et al (US PG Pub No. 2007/0011702).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Vaysman et al teaches an information processing device [Figure 54; Para. 134] comprising a processing unit [21,22] that sets a UI according to setting content of image/sound settings related to at least one of an image and sound of content to be viewed by a user (i.e. adapting user interface based subscriber program preferences or service provider or broadcaster business objectives and selecting video/audio) (Fig. 6-8, 70, 74, 82; Abstract, Para. 12, 149).
Claim 2 is rejected wherein the image/sound settings include a setting related to image quality or sound quality of the content, and the processing unit sets the UI in response to the setting related to image quality or sound quality (i.e. changing aspect ratio) (Figures 31-36; Para. 244-251).
Claim 3 is rejected wherein the processing unit sets at least a layout of the UI in response to the setting of image quality or sound quality (i.e. changing aspect ratio) (Figures 31-36; Para. 244-251).
Claim 4 is rejected wherein the processing unit applies, as the UI, a UI corresponding to the setting content of the image/sound settings from among a plurality of types of UIs (i.e. changing aspect ratio generates different types of UIs) (Figures 31-36; Para. 244-251).
Claim 5 is rejected wherein the processing unit makes the image/sound settings with the setting content according to a mode corresponding to a type of the content, and sets the UI according to the mode (i.e. each ME is assigned to a program that matches predefined content category) (Figure 1-2; Para. 143-144).
Claim 6 is rejected wherein the UI is a UI corresponding to a multi-view image (Figure 6-8, 70, 74-75, 82).
Claim 7 is rejected wherein the UI is a UI corresponding to a game content image (Figure 75).
Claim 8 is rejected wherein the plurality of types of UIs include a UI corresponding to broadcast content (Figure 19, Para. 16, 160).
Claim 9 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a multi-view image displays an image of focused content from among images of a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view, in a larger size than the images of other pieces of content (Figure 71; Para. 275).
Claim 10 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a multi-view image displays a menu at a position corresponding to an image of focused content from among images of a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view (Figure 72, 75; Para. 275, 278).
Claim 11 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a multi-view image enables an operation on focused content from among a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view (Fig. 73; Para. 276-277).
Claim 12 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a multi-view image enables a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view to be changed in a state of the multi-view (Para. 341).
Claim 14 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a multi-view image outputs only sound of focused content from among sound of a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view (Para. 144, 0341).
Claim 15 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a game content image enables a screen size of an image of the content to be viewed by the user to be changed (Fig. 70-71; Para. 274-275).
Claim 16 is rejected wherein the UI corresponding to a game content image enables a display position of an image of the content that is to be viewed by the user to be changed (Fig. 70-71; Para. 274-275).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaysman et al.
Regarding claim 13, Vaysman et al teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim 6. The reference is unclear with respect to the UI corresponding to a multi-view image enables a mixing ratio of sound of a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view to be changed. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Vaysman by specifically to the UI corresponding to a multi-view image enables a mixing ratio of sound of a plurality of pieces of content output in the multi-view to be changed before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of easily allowing users to select audio options providing better user engagement.
Regarding claim 17, Vaysman et al teach limitations discussed with respect to claim 4. The reference is unclear with respect to the plurality of types of UIs include a UI for content output by a camera app, and the UI corresponding to content output by the camera app generates illumination light when a shutter is released, based on an image of content output by the camera app. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Vaysman by specifically the plurality of types of UIs include a UI for content output by a camera app, and the UI corresponding to content output by the camera app generates illumination light when a shutter is released, based on an image of content output by the camera app before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of easily allowing users to capture images to authenticate application comprising sensitive information.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaysman et al, in view of Shimaya et al (US PG Pub No. 20100082414).
Regarding claim 18, Vaysman et al teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim 4 and limitations of the plurality of types of UIs. The reference is unclear with respect to a UI corresponding to content output by a power consumption management app, and the UI corresponding to content output by the power consumption management app acquires from a lookup table a degree of effect indicating a magnitude of power consumption reduction effect for setting values of a plurality of settings related to power consumption, and performs presentation according to the degree of effect.
In similar field of endeavor, Shimaya et al teaches a UI corresponding to content output by a power consumption management app, and the UI corresponding to content output by the power consumption management app acquires from a lookup table a degree of effect indicating a magnitude of power consumption reduction effect for setting values of a plurality of settings related to power consumption, and performs presentation according to the degree of effect (Figures 3A-C, 5A-B, 8; Abstract, Para. 55-56, 60-61, 74). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of easily allowing users to perform power saving setting and take a user’s preference into consideration (Para. 03).
Regarding claim 19, Vaysman and Shimaya, the combination teaches the UI corresponding to content output by the power consumption management app acquires from the lookup table the degree of effect for each of the plurality of settings related to power consumption, and performs presentation according to the degree of effect for each of the settings (Shimaya: Figures 3A-C, 5A-B, 8; Abstract, Para. 55-56, 60-61, 74).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights