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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2014/0320825 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
As to claim 1, Kim (Fig. 1) discloses a display device (100, 300) comprising:
a display (100);
memory storing (Fig. 2 element 330) one or more instructions (Para. 0110); and
at least one processor (350) configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (Para. 0115),
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
recognize a display ratio of content (Para. 0069, resolution of the image),
generate, based on the recognized display ratio of the content and a display ratio of the display (Para. 0071, “”…to project an image of an area similar to that of the main projection surface 100”) , a first area of an image of the content to be displayed on the display (Para. 0051, main image on 100), and a second area of the image of the content to be displayed by an external device (Fig. 2 element 210) on a surrounding area of the display (100),
transmit the second area to the external device (Para. 0050, 0078), and
display the first area on the display (Fig. 3 element 100) while causing the external device to display the second area on the surrounding area of the display (200; Para. 0090).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 11 and the corresponding media of claim 15.
As to claim 2, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
transmit a display extension request to the external device (Para. 0085, managing image correction in auxiliary surface would require receiving information from the auxiliary projectors), and
receive, from the external device, a response to the display extension request (Para. 0081).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Voris et al. (US 2018/0117465 A1, hereinafter “Voris”).
As to claim 3, Kim does not disclose the display device of claim 2, wherein the display extension request comprises information regarding a position and a size of the display.
However, Voris teaches wherein the display extension request comprises information regarding a position and a size of the display (Para. 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Voris to transmit the location and size of display in the system disclosed by Kim. The motivation would have been to project images in the surrounding area of the display (Voris; Para. 0047).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 13.
As to claim 4, Kim does not disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to: display a certain image on the display, wherein the certain image is configured to allow the external device to detect a position and a size of the display.
However, Voris teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to: display a certain image on the display, wherein the certain image is configured to allow the external device to detect a position and a size of the display (Fig. 1; Para. 0047, the mapping image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Voris to transmit the location and size of display in the system disclosed by Kim. The motivation would have been to project images in the surrounding area of the display (Voris; Para. 0047).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 14.
As to claim 5, Kim does not disclose the display device of claim 2, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to, based on receiving, from a user, an input for setting a display extension mode, transmit the display extension request to the external device.
However, Voris teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to, based on receiving, from a user, an input for setting a display extension mode, transmit the display extension request to the external device (Fig. 2C; Para. 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Voris to provide user inputs in the device disclosed by Kim. The motivation would have been to control to the user (Voris; Para. 0053).
As to claim 6, Kim does not disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to, based on the recognized display ratio of the content and the display ratio of the display being different from each other, determine the first area to be displayed on the display according to the display ratio, and determine another area that is not included in the first area, as the second area to be displayed by the external device on the surrounding area.
However, Voris (Fig. 2E) teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to, based on the recognized display ratio of the content (241E) and the display ratio of the display (240) being different from each other (Para. 0061), determine the first area to be displayed on the display according to the display ratio (240, image on display), and determine another area that is not included in the first area, as the second area to be displayed by the external device (260) on the surrounding area (Para. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Voris to display additional content on surrounding area of the display panel in the system disclosed by Kim. The motivation would have been to improve the storytelling experience for the user (Voris; Para. 0061).
As to claim 8, Kim (Fig. 6) discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
synchronize and display an image of the content displayed in the first area (100), with an image of the content displayed in the second area (200).
As to claim 9, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
recognize the display ratio of the content based on at least one of metadata comprising a resolution or metadata comprising the display ratio of the content (Para. 0069, 0071).
As to claim 10, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
based on the recognized display ratio of the content and the display ratio of the display being equal to each other, cause the external device to display ambient light on a certain portion of the surrounding area of the display (Fig. 13; Para. 0071, 0167).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheon et al. (US 2015/0095953 A1, hereinafter “Cheon”).
As to claim 7, Kim does not disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
transmit a display request for the second area to the external device, and
adjust the display of the first area on the display according to a state of the external device.
However, Cheon (Fig. 8A) teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display device to:
transmit a display request for the second area to the external device (Fig. 8B element 830), and
adjust the display of the first area on the display according to a state of the external device (Fig. 8D; Para. 0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Cheon to display broadcast television in the device disclosed by Kim. The motivation would have been to allow user to watch the broadcast contents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Benko et al. (US 9,480,907 B2) discloses extending image surrounding to the display panel (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2625