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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Shading does not conform to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(m), which recites “shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. ... Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. ... Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.”
Views are not “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h).
Fewer than all numbers, letters, and reference characters “measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The SPEC recites “selection screen P1 corresponding to the type of the OS”. This is inconsistent with the appearance of P1 in Fig. 3, wherein selection screen P1 corresponds to various user selected display formats, rather than corresponding to various OS types.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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.
Claim 7 recites “a predetermined communication standard” in the last line. Standards change over time; thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 7: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDougall et al (US 20100066763 A1) in view of Froment et al (US Pat. No. 8803817 B1).
As recited in independent claim 1, MacDougall et al show a display system (including portable electronic device 102) comprising one or more processors (“implemented as computer programs that are executed on programmable computers comprising at least one processor” [0115]) and being capable (it is noted by the Examiner that MacDougall et al’s processor is capable of displaying content on a second display device, regardless whether or not display of such content ever actually occurs) of displaying display content (including 108 and 110) of a first display device 104 on a second display device (it is noted by the Examiner that the limitation “second display device” is interpreted as an intended use of the recited display system, rather than as a positively recited component of the display system) via a transmitter (it is noted by the Examiner that a transmitter is necessarily present in “mobile telephones” [0037], and that transmitters are capable of transmitting display content from one mobile telephone to another) connected (physically, insofar as the transmitter is inside the same housing) to the first display device 104, wherein the transmitter is connected (physically) to the first display device 104, wherein the one or more processors (“implemented as computer programs that are executed on programmable computers comprising at least one processor” [0115]) are configured to: configure a display format (see various display formats in Figs. 1A-E, for example) of the first display device 104 in a selectable state (insofar as the user selects a display format by selecting an orientation of the device relative to the user’s face).
As recited in independent claim 1, MacDougall et al are silent regarding: determine a type of an operating system installed in the first display device; and said display format being based on the type of the operating system, and configure a display format of the second display device in a selectable state.
As recited in independent claim 1, Froment et al show: an operating system 206 (see Fig. 2) installed in a first display device 102; a display format (“a first version of the content presentation application 212(1) resides on the eBook reader device 10”, see col. 8, lines 54-56; “A copy or slightly different version of the eBook”, see col. 8, line 67-col. 9, line 1) being based on the type of the operating system (an e-reader type of operating system, for example), and configure (see configuration in Fig. 4, for example) a display format (“the reader may choose to watch the video on the multifunction communication device 104(2)”, see col. 9, lines 13-14; “watch the video component 406 from the eBook 302 on a second device 104(2). It may be that the eBook reader device 102 is not configured to show video clips, or color versions”, see col. 9, lines 23-26) of the second display device 104(2) in a selectable state (“the reader may choose to watch the video on the multifunction communication device 104(2)”, see col. 9, lines 13-14; see also col. 9, lines 39-44, “retrieve and depict the image 502. The image may appear … in response to the reader’s input to depict the image. By using the second device, the image may be presented in high resolution, and in full color”) based on a type of operating system (“which may not be possible on the eBook reader device 102”, see col. 9, lines 44-45).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that basing a display format on a type of operating system was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to base a display format on a type of operating system as taught by Froment et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to pause reading a monochrome eBook in order to choose to view information in a color video format or a high resolution color image format when the eBook type operating system does not support display in a color video format nor display in a high resolution color image format as taught by Froment et al (see Figs. 4-5 and their descriptions in the text).
Regarding independent claim 8: The method of claim 8 is not patentably distinct from the system of claim 1 and is obvious on the same grounds for the same reasons.
Regarding independent claim 9: The medium of claim 9 is not patentably distinct from the system of claim 1 and is obvious on the same grounds for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDougall et al (US 20100066763 A1) in view of Froment et al (US Pat. No. 8803817 B1) as applied above, and further in view of Fujino et al (US 20180024806 A1).
MacDougall et al show a system as described above.
As recited in claim 2, MacDougall et al are silent regarding whether the one or more processors cause a selection screen corresponding to the type of the operating system to be displayed on the first display device, and receive, on the selection screen, an operation of selecting the display format of each of the first display device and the second display device.
As recited in claim 2, Fujino et al show that one or more processors (“code is executable by the processor” [ABST]) cause a selection screen (see Fig. 2) corresponding to the type of the operating system (“the display screens of these display devices are driven by the same operating system”, see [0004], for example) to be displayed on the first display device (“icon (e.g., ID for displaying a display mode selection screen that can display the display mode selection screen P1 may be disposed on the main display screen E1 (e.g., on a lower left portion of the screen P1, among other locations that are possible and contemplated herein)” [0023] (unpaired parenthesis in original)), and receive (“IS DISPLAY MODE SELECTED?”, see S104 in Fig. 3), on the selection screen P1, an operation of selecting the display format ( “SELECTED DISPLAY MODE”, see S106 in Fig. 3) of each (insofar as P1 allows user selection of modes impacting display format of both first and second display devices) of first display device 21 and second display device 11.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a selection screen was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to display the selection screen of Fujino et al on the device of MacDougall et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to empower the user to select display modes impacting two devices usable at the same time as taught by Fujino et al (see especially Figs. 2-3).
As recited in claim 4, MacDougall et al show that a processor (“implemented as computer programs that are executed on programmable computers comprising at least one processor” [0115]) controls a display screen 104 of a first display device 102 based on a selected display format (wherein user 100 selects a display format by establishing an orientation of the 102).
As recited in claim 4, MacDougall et al are silent regarding whether the processor controls the second display device based on the selected display format.
There is no invention in duplicating known parts, absent unexpected results due to the duplication. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that controlling a second display device based on a selected display format was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the processor of MacDougall to control a second display device based on the second display format. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to extend a display onto two displays to simulate increased screen size via a tiled display as suggested by Froment et al (see Fig. 10, for example).
As recited in claim 5, MacDougall et al are silent regarding whether the one or more processors cause the display content of the first display device to be displayed on the second display device in a case where the display format is selected in which the display content of the first display device is caused to be displayed on the second display device.
As recited in claim 5, Froment et al show that one or more processors 202 cause the display content (Chapter 1, for example) of the first display device 102 to be displayed (see appearance of 104(1) in Fig. 8, for example) on the second display device 104(1) in a case (see Fig. 8 embodiment, for example) where the display format (“mirrored display mode”, see Fig. 8 and its description in the text) is selected in which the display content (Chapter 1, for example) of the first display device 102 is caused to be displayed (see appearance of 104(1) in Fig. 8, for example) on the second display device 104(1).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a processor causing displaying content of a first display on a second display in a case where a mirror mode is selected was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a processor to cause displaying content of a first display on a second display in a case where a mirror mode is selected. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to empower a teacher to control students’ displays as taught by Froment et al (see Fig. 8 and its description in the text).
As recited in claim 6, MacDougall et al are silent regarding whether the one or more processors: cause the selection screen corresponding to the type of the operating system to be displayed on the first display device in a case where the transmitter is connected to the first display device.
As recited in claim 6, Fujino et al show a processor (“code is executable by the processor” [ABST]) causing the selection screen P1 corresponding to the type of the operating system (“the display screens of these display devices are driven by the same operating system”, see [0004], for example) to be displayed on (see mirror display mode m2) the first display device 21 in a case where the transmitter 55 is connected to the first display device 21.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a selection screen was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a selection screen as taught by Fujino et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to select a display mode and perform a multi-monitor display control process associated with a selected display mode as taught by Fujino et al (“display mode setting control unit 32 can output a display of a display mode selection screen P1 for selecting a display mode of the multi-monitor display control process to the main display screen E1 and/or command the multi-monitor display control unit 31 to perform a multi-monitor display control process associated with the display mode selected on the display mode selection screen P1” [0021]).
As recited in claim 6, MacDougall et al are silent regarding causing the display content of the first display device to be displayed on the second display device in a case where the display format is selected in which the display content of the first display device is caused to be displayed on the second display device.
As recited in claim 6, Froment et al show causing the display content (Chapter 1, for example) of the first display device 102 to be displayed (see appearance of 104(1) in Fig. 8, for example) on the second display device 104(1) in a case (see Fig. 8 embodiment, for example) where the display format (“mirrored display mode”, see Fig. 8 and its description in the text) is selected in which the display content (Chapter 1, for example) of the first display device 102 is caused to be displayed (see appearance of 104(1) in Fig. 8, for example) on the second display device 104(1).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a processor causing display content of a first display device to be displayed on a second display device in a case where mirror display mode is selected was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a processor to cause display content of a first display device to be displayed on a second display device as suggested by Froment et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to operate in mirror mode as taught by Froment et al (see Fig. 8 and its description in the text).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record neither shows nor suggests “assign a function of selecting the display format corresponding to the type of the operating system to an operation inputter provided in the transmitter, and receive, at the operation inputter, an operation of selecting the display format of each of the first display device and the second display device”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
01/16/2026