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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first scaling control module” in claims 1 and 10 and “second scaling control module” in claims 11 and 20 (support in specification paragraph [0021], fig. 2)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong (US 2015/0358554) in view of Marcarian (US 2012/0316453).
Regarding claim 1, Cheong discloses A video processing device supporting free pairing of a picture-in-picture mode and a picture-by-picture mode, which is adapted to a first display device, the video processing device comprising:
a first scaling control module (fig. 1(130)) connected to the first input and the second input ([0019, 0022]);
wherein, when the first scaling control module receives a picture-in- picture mode command, the first scaling control module combines the first video stream and the second video stream to generate a first picture-in-picture video stream, and the first display device displays the first picture-in-picture video stream (fig. 5, [0009, 0023] user is given the option to display the two sources in PIP mode);
wherein, when the first scaling control module receives a picture-by-picture mode command, the first scaling control module combines the first video stream and the second video stream to generate a first picture-by-picture video stream, and the first display device displays the first picture-
by-picture video stream (fig. 5, [0009, 0023] user is given the option to display the two sources in PBP mode).
Cheong does not specifically disclose first input is a first hub and second input is a second hub; a first hub wherein the first hub is configured to obtain a first video stream from a first signal source; a second hub wherein the second hub is configured to obtain a second video stream from a second signal source.
Marcarian discloses first input is a first hub and second input is a second hub; a first hub wherein the first hub is configured to obtain a first video stream from a first signal source; a second hub wherein the second hub is configured to obtain a second video stream from a second signal source (fig. 3, [0038]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the hubs of Marcarian into the system of Cheong in order to easily manage multiple inputs and displays.
Regarding claim 2, Cheong discloses wherein the first scaling control module includes a video synthesis circuit, and the video synthesis circuit enables the first video stream and the second video stream to overlap with each other according to the picture-in-picture mode command, so as to generate the first picture-in-picture video stream; wherein the first scaling control module arranges the first video stream and the second video stream side by side according to the picture-by-picture mode command, so as to generate the first picture-by-picture video stream (fig. 5, [009, 0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Cheong discloses wherein, when the first display device displays the first picture-in-picture video stream, the first display device displays a first sub-picture and a second sub-picture that overlap with each other, and the first sub-picture and the second sub- picture respectively display the first video stream and the second video stream (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Cheong discloses wherein, when the first display device displays the first picture-by-picture video stream, the first display device displays a first sub-picture and a second sub-picture that are arranged side by side and do not overlap with each other, and the first sub- picture and the second sub-picture respectively display the first video stream and the second video stream (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Cheong discloses wherein the first scaling control module further includes a screen display processing circuit, the screen display processing circuit is connected to the video synthesis circuit, and the screen display processing circuit generates an on-screen display
menu according to an on-screen display activation command ([0009, 0026, 0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheong discloses wherein the screen display processing circuit includes an embedded display output port, the embedded display output port is connected to a video output port of the first scaling control module, and the embedded display output port outputs the on-screen display menu ([0027, 0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Cheong discloses wherein, when the first display device displays the first picture-in-picture video stream, the first display device displays a first sub-picture and a second sub-picture that overlap with each other, the first sub-picture and the second sub-picture respectively display the first video stream and the second video stream, and the on-screen display menu overlaps with the first sub-picture or the second sub-picture (fig. 5, [0026, 0028, 0030])
Regarding claim 8, Cheong discloses wherein, when the first display device displays the first picture-by-picture video stream, the first display device displays a first sub-picture and a second sub-picture that are arranged side by side and do not overlap with each other, the first sub- picture and the second sub-picture respectively display the first video stream and the second video stream, and the on-screen display menu overlaps with the first sub-picture or the second sub-picture (fig. 5, [0026, 0028, 0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Cheong discloses comprising a control interface, wherein the control interface outputs the picture-in- picture mode command and the picture-by-picture mode command (fig. 5, [0026, 0028, 0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Cheong in view of Marcarian discloses further comprising a second scaling control module, wherein the second scaling control module is connected to the first hub and the second hub, the second scaling control module obtains a third video stream and a fourth video stream respectively from the first hub and the second hub, and the second scaling control module is configured to connect to a second display device; wherein, when the second scaling control module receives the picture-in-picture mode command, the second scaling control module combines the third video stream and the fourth video stream to generate a second picture-in-picture video stream, and the second display device displays the second picture-in- picture video stream; wherein, when the second scaling control module receives the picture-by-picture mode command, the second scaling control module combines the third video stream and the fourth video stream to generate a second picture-by-picture video stream, and the second display device displays the second picture-by-picture video stream (fig. 3, [0038] of Marcarian, fig. 5, [0009, 0023] of Cheong).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights