DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-3, 6-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220062764) in view of Pentelka (US 2015/0257183), hereinafter referred to as “Pen”.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a display (including 20 and 30 in fig. 7), comprising:
a memory (22, fig. 7) configured to store a correspondence (para. 38-39) between a plurality of keyboard-mouse commands and a plurality of touch operations (para. 48-89); and
a controller (23, fig. 7) connected to the memory (see fig. 7), the controller configured to receive a keyboard- mouse signal (manipulation information in fig. 7 and para. 60), and correspondingly output a touch signal (touch position information in fig. 7 and para. 60) according to the correspondence (para. 38-39), the touch signal configured to operate a touch device (10, fig. 7) according to the plurality of touch operations (para. 60),
wherein the controller is further configured to receive an update command from the touch device (para. 48) and update the correspondence according to the update command (para. 48, 60; wherein the new correspondence mapping is used for new touch outputs).
Li fails to disclose a shell including all of the components and the display.
Pen discloses a shell (the outside of 540 in fig. 5 and para. 152, further wherein the docking station is located inside the display shell), a memory disposed inside the shell (para. 152 and fig. 5, wherein docking stations include memory) and a controller disposed inside the shell (para. 152 and fig. 5; wherein docking stations include memory).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Pen in the device of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a docking station located inside a monitor (Pen; para. 152). Ultimately to reduce the size of the device and save space.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses further comprising:
a transmission interface (20, fig. 7) configured to connect the touch device to the controller (para. 60), output the touch signal to the touch device (para. 60) and receive a video stream from the touch device (para. 60, 35, 50).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses wherein the transmission interface is further configured to receive an audio stream from the touch device (para. 36), and output the audio stream to an audio playing component (para. 51).
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 1. See above rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses wherein the setting command comes from a computer or the touch device (para. 48, 60).
Claims 10-12 are rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 1-3, respectively. See above rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See new citations above.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/ROBIN J MISHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights