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 § 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.
Claims 2 and 10-13 are 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.
In claims 2 and 10-13, the terms “said display” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear as to what is being referred to as said display.
Clarification and correction are required.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0084253).
Regarding claim 1
Li et al. shows the active receiver card (combination of 10, 110, 120 and 13/130), see Figs. 1-9) comprising:
a processor (10); and
at least one interface (110 in combination with 120) configured to receive a broadcast serialized video data stream as input from a video processing system (see para. 0045-0046);
wherein the active receiver card is configured to be electrically connected to one or more tiles (taken to be display panel or display panels having LED drivers 14/14a-e/140a-14e, see para. 0003-0005 and 0040), each tile comprising a plurality of pixels (see para. 0066);
wherein said active receiver card is configured to receive a first video stream (taken to be input of first receivers 120 from the output of video processor 10/110, see Figs. 4, 6 and 7, and para. 0050-0051 and 0057), and a second video stream by the at least one interface (taken to be input of second receivers 130, see Figs. 3-7, and para. 0061-0063 and 0065-0066; or also taken to be inputs from the other receivers/interface such as 120b-120i, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2
Li et al. further shows, wherein the active receiver card comprises a first interface (taken to be the combination of 110 and 120a, see Fig. 4) and a second interface (taken to be the combination of 110 and 120b, see Fig. 4), and said display (1) is configured to receive the first video stream for the first interface (taken to be the output from 120a) and the second video stream for the second interface (taken to be the output from 120b, see Fig. 4 and para. 0049).
Regarding claim 3
Li et al. further shows, wherein the second video stream is different from the first video stream (taken to be different data rates, see para. 0052).
Regarding claim 7
Li et al. further shows, wherein the first video stream is originating from a first source (taken to be from video processor 10, such as VCR, satellite etc., see para. 0045), and the second video stream is originating from a second source (taken to be from first receivers 120 which is converted to different data rates, see para. 0046 and 0052).
Regarding claim 8
Li et al. further shows, wherein the first video stream received by the first interface (110 in combination with 120a, see Fig. 4) and the second video stream received by the second interface (110 in combination with 120b, see Fig. 4), are used alternatingly in said active receiver card (taken to be multiplexing the receivers 120, see para. 0061).
Regarding claim 9
Li et al. further shows, wherein the second video stream is derived from the first video stream (taken to be converting the first data from 120 to a different data rate, see 0052).
Regarding claim 10
Li et al. further shows, wherein the first video stream and the second video stream are each providing an image to said display (see para. 0007, 0052, 0071 and 0076).
Regarding claim 14
Li et al. further shows, a display (taken to be an LED display device, see the abstract) comprising:
the active receiver card according to claim 1 (see Figs. 1-9); and
one or more tiles, each tile comprising a plurality of pixels (taken to be display panel or display panels having LED drivers 14/14a-e/140a-14e, see para. 0003-0005 and 0040);
wherein said display is configured to receive a video stream for each of said interfaces (taken to be the output from video source 10 and 12).
Regarding claim 15
Li et al. further shows, wherein the active receiver card comprises a plurality of interfaces (120/120a-120i, see Fig. 4), each of the plurality of interfaces being configured to receive a broadcast serialized video data stream as input from a video processing system (10/110, see Fig. 4 and para. 0040-0043).
Regarding claim 16
Li et al. further shows, wherein the plurality of interfaces of the active receiver card comprises at least a first interface (taken to be the combination of 110 and 120a, see Fig. 4) and a second interface (taken to be the combination of 110 and 120b, see Fig. 4), and said display (1) is configured to receive the first video stream for the first interface (taken to be the output from 120a) and the second video stream for the second interface (taken to be the output from 120b, see Fig. 4 and para. 0049).
Regarding claim 17
Li et al. further shows, wherein the second video stream is different from the first video stream (taken to be different data rates, see para. 0052).
Regarding claim 18
Li et al. further shows, wherein each of the plurality of interfaces (120a-120i) of the active receiver card are configured to be used in parallel (see Fig. 4).
Double Patenting
In order to expedite prosecution even though the claims have not been allowed, a double patenting rejection is provided below for applicant consideration.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-17 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,506,923 in view of common knowledge in the art.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant applicant claims are taken to be broader and include all of the limitations of the patent claims (see for example the similar language used in the patent claims and the claims of the instant application), however the patent claims do not specifically recite the
active receiver card is configured to receive a first video stream and a second video stream by the at least one interface
It should be noted, that while in patented claim 1, the first interface of the active receiver card receives a broadcast serialized video data stream including video image data pertaining to said tile of the display and the broadcast serialized video data stream further including other video image data pertaining to one or more other tiles of said display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that “the video data stream including video image data pertaining to said tile of the display and other video image data pertaining to one or more other tiles of said display” could be implemented by respective first and second video data streams serially placed back-to-back, in which case the result would read on the application claim 1.
The dependent claims 2, 3, 7-10, 14-17 and 19 are also rejected because they include language of claim 1, and the further limitations as recited in the dependent claims are taken to be inherent to having first and second video streams.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 19 and 20 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 an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance:
Regarding claim 4
The prior art of record, including Li et al. (US 2017/0084253), taken to be the closest prior art noted in the above rejection to the claims, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the active receiver card, as recited in claim 1, having the combination of elements, along with having the further limitations which include,
wherein the first video stream is providing an image using odd pixels, and the second video stream is providing an image using even pixels, as recited in claim 4.
Further, even though Li et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claim 4, noted above.
Also, none of the prior art of record teaches having the first video stream is providing an image using odd pixels, and the second video stream is providing an image using even pixels, as recited in claim 4.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Li et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5
The prior art of record, including Li et al. (US 2017/0084253), taken to be the closest prior art noted in the above rejection to the claims, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the active receiver card, as recited in claim 1, having the combination of elements, along with having the further limitations which include,
wherein the first video stream is the top or upper layer or overlay of an image, and the second video stream is the bottom or under layer or underlay of said image, as recited in claim 5.
Further, even though Li et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claim 5, noted above.
Also, none of the prior art of record teaches having the first video stream is the top or upper layer or overlay of an image, and the second video stream is the bottom or under layer or underlay of said image, as recited in claim 5.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Li et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6
The prior art of record, including Li et al. (US 2017/0084253), taken to be the closest prior art noted in the above rejection to the claims, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the active receiver card, as recited in claim 1, having the combination of elements, along with having the further limitations which include,
wherein the first and second video stream are part of a 3D display application, wherein the first video stream is providing an image meant for a left eye, and the second video stream is providing an image meant for a right eye, as recited in claim 6.
Further, even though Li et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claim 6, noted above.
Also, none of the prior art of record teaches having the first and second video stream are part of a 3D display application, wherein the first video stream is providing an image meant for a left eye, and the second video stream is providing an image meant for a right eye, as recited in claim 6.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Li et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claims 11-13
The prior art of record, including Li et al. (US 2017/0084253), taken to be the closest prior art noted in the above rejection to the claims, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the active receiver card, as recited in claim 1, having the combination of elements, along with having the further limitations which include,
wherein the first video stream is providing a first image to said display, the second video stream is providing a second image to said display, and depending on said first or second image, the first video stream is overlaying the second video stream on said display, or vice versa, the second video stream is overlaying the first video stream on said display, as recited in claims 11-13.
Further, even though Li et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 11-13, noted above.
Also, none of the prior art of record teaches having the first video stream is providing a first image to said display, the second video stream is providing a second image to said display, and depending on said first or second image, the first video stream is overlaying the second video stream on said display, or vice versa, the second video stream is overlaying the first video stream on said display, as recited in claims 11-13.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Li et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 11-13.
Regarding claims 19 and 20
The prior art of record, including Li et al. (US 2017/0084253), taken to be the closest prior art noted in the above rejection to the claims, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the active receiver card, as recited in claim 16, having the combination of elements, along with having the further limitations which include,
synchronizing and blending in real-time the first video stream and the second video stream received respectively via the first interface and second interface such that images provided by said first and second video streams are displayed, as recited in claims 19 and 20.
Further, even though Li et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 19 and 20, noted above.
Also, none of the prior art of record teaches the synchronizing and blending in real-time the first video stream and the second video stream received respectively via the first interface and second interface such that images provided by said first and second video streams are displayed, as recited in claims 19-20.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Li et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 19-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hundemer (US 9,451,231), show a display system configured to receive broadcast a serialized video data stream, comprising: a display for displaying the serialized video data stream, wherein the video stream may include plural video data streams (see the abstract, Figs. 1-5 and columns 4-14).
Campbell et al. (US 2007/0186002), show a display system configured to receive broadcast a serialized video data stream, comprising: a display for displaying the serialized video data stream, wherein the video stream may include plural video data streams (see the abstract, Figs. 1-11 and para. 0091-0134).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N. EDUN/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2629
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights