Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims and Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 19 August 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are amended; claims 2-5 are cancelled; claims 8-24 are new.
Claims 1 and 6-24 are pending.
Claims 6-17, 22 and 23 are withdrawn from consideration as set forth below.
Claims 1, 18-21 and 24 are examined on the merits.
Election by Original Presentation - Claims 6-17, 22 and 23 Withdrawn
Newly amended/submitted claims 6-17, 22 and 23 (claims 6 and 7 as amended, and new claims 8-17, 22 and 23) are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally presented (on 31 July 2025) and examined (on 20 May 2026).
Since applicant has received an action (mailed on 20 May 2026) on the merits for the originally presented invention (filed on 31 July 2025), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Accordingly, claims 6-17, 22 and 23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
The potential for this outcome was identified to Applicant’s representative at the interview of 29 July 2026 with respect to the substantially similar informal proposal of 28 July 2026 (see the Interview Summary mailed 3 August 2026), and Applicant was advised that the omitted subject matter could be presented in a divisional application.
Newly amended/submitted claims 6-17, 22 and 23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1-5 (as originally presented on 31 July 2025, and examined on 20 May 2026), drawn to a display device, classified in class G09G 5/12.
II. Claim 6 (as originally presented on 31 July 2025, and examined on 20 May 2026), drawn to a 1st multi-display system, classified in class G09G 5/12.
III. Claim 7 (as originally presented on 31 July 2025, and examined on 20 May 2026), drawn to a 1st display control method, classified in class G09G 5/12.
IV. Claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23 (as newly filed/amended on 19 August 2026), drawn to a 2nd multi-display system, classified in class G09G 2360/04.
V. Claims 7-13 (as newly filed/amended on 19 August 2026), drawn to a 2nd display control method, classified in class G09G 2310/08.
The newly filed/amended inventions are distinct from the originally presented and examined invention, each from the other because of the following reasons:
“Invention IV” and “Invention I” are related respectively as combination and subcombination.
Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that: (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
(1) In the instant case, the Combination does not require the particulars of the Subcombination as claimed (in originally presented claims 1-5) because:
The Combination as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23) does not require:
“A display device comprising: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1;
“A display device comprising:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1;
“A display device comprising:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1; and
“A display device comprising:… a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of display devices of a control command including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal and additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1 of “Invention I.”
(2) Furthermore, the Subcombination has separate utility, such as:
The Subcombination as claimed (in originally presented claims 1-5) can be used without requiring:
“a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6; and
“the master device is configured to: perform first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measure, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculate, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; and perform second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information: and wherein each of the plurality of slave display devices is configured to: perform a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6 of “Invention IV.”
“Invention IV” and “Invention II” are related respectively as combination and subcombination.
(1) In the instant case, the Combination does not require the particulars of the Subcombination as claimed (in originally presented claim 6) because:
The Combination as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23) does not require:
“a first display device and a plurality of second display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of second display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of second display devices of a control command including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal and additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input to the video input terminal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with the first display device,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6 of “Invention II.”
(2) Furthermore, the Subcombination has separate utility, such as:
The Subcombination as claimed (in originally presented claim 6) can be used without requiring:
“a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6; and
“the master device is configured to: perform first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measure, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculate, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; and perform second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information: and wherein each of the plurality of slave display devices is configured to: perform a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6 of “Invention IV.”
“Invention IV” and “Invention III” are related as product and process of use.
The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h).
(1) In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed (in originally presented claim 7) can be practiced with another materially different product (than that of newly filed/amended claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23).
For example, the process as claimed (in originally presented claim 7) can be practiced with another materially different product (than that of newly filed/amended claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23) not including at least:
“a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6; and
“the master device is configured to: perform first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measure, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculate, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; and perform second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information: and wherein each of the plurality of slave display devices is configured to: perform a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6 of “Invention IV.”
(2) In the instant case, the product as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23) can be used in a materially different process of using that product (than that of originally presented claim 7).
For example, the product as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 6, 14-17, 22, and 23) can be used in a materially different process of using that product (than that of originally presented claim 7) without at least:
“a display device comprising a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7;
“a display device comprising… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input to the video input terminal, and a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7; and
“a display device comprising… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7 of “Invention III.”
“Invention I” and “Invention V” are related as product and process of use.
(1) In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 7-13) can be practiced with another materially different product (than that of originally presented claims 1-5).
For example, the process as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 7-13) can be practiced with another materially different product (than that of originally presented claims 1-5) not including at least:
“A display device comprising: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1;
“A display device comprising:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1;
“A display device comprising:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1; and
“A display device comprising:… a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of display devices of a control command including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal and additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1 of “Invention I.”
(2) In the instant case, the product as claimed (in originally presented claims 1-5) can be used in a materially different process of using that product (than that of newly filed/amended claims 7-13).
For example, the product as claimed (in originally presented claims 1-5) can be used in a materially different process of using that product (than that of newly filed/amended claims 7-13) without at least:
“a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7; and
“performing, by the master device, first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measuring, by the master device, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculating, by the master device, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; performing, by the master device, second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information; and performing, by each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7 of “Invention V.”
“Invention II” and “Invention V” are related as product and process of use.
(1) In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 7-13) can be practiced with another materially different product (than that of originally presented claim 6).
For example, the process as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 7-13) can be practiced with another materially different product (than that of originally presented claim 6) not including at least:
“a first display device and a plurality of second display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of second display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of second display devices of a control command including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal and additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input to the video input terminal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with the first display device,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6 of “Invention II.”
(2) In the instant case, the product as claimed (in originally presented claim 6) can be used in a materially different process of using that product (than that of newly filed/amended claims 7-13).
For example, the product as claimed (in originally presented claim 6) can be used in a materially different process of using that product (than that of newly filed/amended claims 7-13) without at least:
“a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7; and
“performing, by the master device, first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measuring, by the master device, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculating, by the master device, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; performing, by the master device, second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information; and performing, by each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7 of “Invention V.”
“Invention V” and “Invention III” are related respectively as combination and subcombination.
(1) In the instant case, the Combination does not require the particulars of the Subcombination as claimed (in originally presented claim 7) because:
The Combination as claimed (in newly filed/amended claims 7-13) does not require:
“a display device comprising a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7;
“a display device comprising… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input to the video input terminal, and a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7; and
“a display device comprising… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7 of “Invention III.”
(2) Furthermore, the Subcombination has separate utility, such as:
The Subcombination as claimed (in originally presented claim 7) can be used without requiring:
“a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7; and
“performing, by the master device, first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measuring, by the master device, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculating, by the master device, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; performing, by the master device, second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information; and performing, by each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7 of “Invention V.”
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example:
Examining “Invention I” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “A display device comprising: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1;
“A display device comprising:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1;
“A display device comprising:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1; and
“A display device comprising:… a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of display devices of a control command including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal and additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 1 of “Invention I.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining the newly filed/amended Inventions.
Examining “Invention II” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “a first display device and a plurality of second display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of second display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“the first display device comprises:… a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of second display devices of a control command including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal and additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises: a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises:… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input to the video input terminal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6;
“each of the plurality of second display devices comprises:… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with the first display device,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 6 of “Invention II.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining the newly filed/amended Inventions.
Examining “Invention III” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “a display device comprising a video input terminal configured to input a video signal,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7;
“a display device comprising… a video output terminal configured to output the video signal input to the video input terminal, and a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7; and
“a display device comprising… a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices,” as claimed in originally presented independent claim 7 of “Invention III.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining the newly filed/amended Inventions.
Examining “Invention IV” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6; and
“the master device is configured to: perform first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measure, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculate, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; and perform second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information: and wherein each of the plurality of slave display devices is configured to: perform a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 6 of “Invention IV.”
The above search queries were not required when examining the originally presented Inventions.
Examining “Invention V” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “a plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7;
“a master device configured to communicate with each of the plurality of slave display devices,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7; and
“performing, by the master device, first one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with a predetermined communication order, wherein the first one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a first control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device; measuring, by the master device, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices; calculating, by the master device, based on the respective response time measured, a respective delay time for each of the plurality of slave display devices; performing, by the master device, second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order, wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises: transmitting a second control command to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device, wherein the second control command includes the respective delay time as additional information; and performing, by each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective video control at a timing when the respective delay time has elapsed from a respective time that each of the plurality of slave display devices received the respective second control command,” as claimed in newly amended independent claim 7 of “Invention V.”
The above search queries were not required when examining the originally presented Inventions.
The invention originally presented and examined (original claims 1-7, as rejected in the Office action of 20 May 2026) requires a display device - a display device having a video input terminal, a video output terminal, a communication terminal for one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices, and a communication controller that notifies each of the plurality of display devices of a control command by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal- together with a system and a method each built on that same display device (original claims 6 and 7 each recited the display device with its video input terminal, video output terminal and communication terminal).
Amended claim 1 and new claims 18-21 and 24 continue to claim that display device and add further limitations to it; they are examined below.
Amended claim 6 (and new claims 14-17, 22 and 23) and amended claim 7 (and new claims 8-13) are instead directed to a multi-display system and a display control method in which the originally claimed display device has been removed:
the first display device with its video input terminal and video output terminal has been replaced by a generic master device that is no longer required to be a display device and no longer requires either video terminal;
the video input terminal, video output terminal, communication terminal and command execution controller of each second display device have been deleted from claim 6; and
the performing display device, its video input terminal, video output terminal and communication terminal have been deleted from the preamble of claim 7.
In their place, each of claims 6 and 7 adds a two-round measurement protocol (a first one-to-one communication round in a predetermined order with a first control command and a first response signal, measurement of a respective response time, calculation of a respective delay time, and a second one-to-one communication round carrying the delay time) and a slave-side execution step performed by each slave display device - subject matter that was not recited in any originally presented claim.
Moreover, the newly presented inventions each requires a search not required for the examined display device - among other things, for master controllers that are not display devices and carry no video relay terminals (e.g., PCs, set-top boxes and dedicated wall controllers) and for slave-side delayed-execution behavior - so that examining the newly presented claims together with the originally presented invention would impose a serious burden.
Interview Summary - Statement of Substance Required
The reply filed 19 August 2026 does not contain a complete written statement of the substance of the interview held on 29 July 2026.
The Interview Summary (PTOL-413) mailed 3 August 2026 reminded Applicant that a complete written statement as to the substance of the interview must be made of record in the application file and that this is Applicant’s responsibility. See 37 CFR 1.133(b) and MPEP § 713.04.
Applicant is required to include a complete and proper statement of the substance of the interview in the next reply.
Remarks - Claim Numbering
The Remarks filed 19 August 2026 refer to claims 8, 15 and 20 as the independent claims and to claims 9/16/21, 10/11/17/18/22/23 and 13/14/25/26/27 as dependent claims, which is the numbering of the informal proposal of 28 July 2026 rather than of the claim listing actually filed (independent claims 1, 6 and 7; no claim 25-27 exists).
The Remarks also state that claims 1 and 8-24 are pending, whereas amended claims 6 and 7 are also pending.
The examiner has read each argument as directed to the correspondingly numbered claim of the filed listing (e.g., the arguments concerning claims 9/16/21 as directed to claims 8/14/18, those concerning claims 10/11/17/18/22/23 as directed to claims 9/10/15/16/19/20, and those concerning claims 13/14/25/26/27 as directed to claims 12/13/22/23/24).
Applicant is requested to conform the Remarks to the claim listing in future papers.
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 1, 18-21 and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Maintained. The term “specific process” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders each claim indefinite. The term “specific” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “specific” is purely subjective.
This rejection was set forth in paragraph 4 of the Office action of 20 May 2026 with respect to claims 1, 6 and 7; the term remains in amended claim 1 (and in withdrawn claims 6 and 7) without change, so the rejection is maintained as to claim 1 and applies to claims 18-21 and 24 by dependency.
Applicant’s statement that the rejection is moot “because of the cancellation of the claims and the amendment of the claims that do not include such issues” (Remarks at 18) is incorrect as to this term.
Claim 1 recites “a communication terminal configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices” and “a communication controller configured to notify each of the plurality of display devices,” and then recites that “the communication controller is configured to communicate with each of a plurality of slave display devices,” with every subsequent limitation referring to the plurality of slave display devices.
It is unclear whether the plurality of slave display devices is the same plurality as, a subset of, or a different plurality from the previously recited plurality of display devices - and therefore whether the control command recited in the fourth element is the first control command, the second control command, or a third command notified to a different set of devices.
Claims 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24 each recite, “The master device according to claim 1” (claims 19 and 20: according to claim 18).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the master device in these claims:
Claim 1 recites A display device, not a master device, and neither claim 1 nor claim 18 recites that the display device is a master device.
It is unclear whether claims 18-21 and 24 are intended to further limit the display device of claim 1 or to claim a different apparatus.
Claims 19 and 20 recite, “a total sum of the respective times” (claim 20: “the respective times and switching times”) and “the respective time of one slave display device” (claim 20: “the respective time and a switching time”).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the respective times / the respective time; claim 1 recites a respective response time and a respective delay time for each slave display device, and it is unclear which is meant.
Claims 19 and 20 further recite that each adding or dividing step is performed “in response to the two or more slave display devices being slave display devices that are to receive the second control command and to transmit the second response signal after receiving the second control command and transmitting the second response signal are performed by each of the plurality of slave display devices” (and the corresponding conditions for one slave display device and for no slave display device).
The condition cannot be satisfied as written: no slave display device can receive the second control command after the receiving and transmitting have been performed by each of the plurality of slave display devices, since that plurality includes the device itself.
It is unclear which slave display devices are meant.
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Ground A - Claims 1 and 18
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeko (US 2015/0287390 A1) in view of Mizosoe et al (WO 2016/013074 A1) and Natori et al (US 2011/0234474 A1);
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Nishioka (JP 2008-090080 A).
Citations to Mizosoe and to Nishioka are to the English machine translations of record.
Regarding claim 1, Kakeko discloses a display device [e.g., Fig. 1: 101-M] comprising:
a video input terminal [e.g., Paragraph 51: receives an image signal to be displayed by the multi-screen display system 100 from an external source via the network; Fig. 2: input terminal of 111] configured to input a video signal [e.g., Paragraph 51: image signal];
a video output terminal [e.g., Paragraph 51: transmits the received image signal to the first slave display device 101-S1, which is in the next position; Fig. 2: output terminal of 111] configured to output the video signal input;
a communication terminal [e.g., Fig. 2: output terminal of 117] configured to perform one-to-one communication with each of a plurality of display devices [e.g., Paragraph 181: transmits by a unicast with respect to each of the slave display devices 101-S, ID setting commands that instruct the setting of the display device IDs determined as a result of step S111; Fig. 1: 101-S1 to 101-S8]; and
a communication controller [e.g., Fig. 2: 117] configured to notify each of the plurality of display devices of a control command [e.g., Paragraph 153: an ID setting command] including control information for issuing an instruction to execute a specific process [e.g., Paragraph 153: instructs the setting of a display device ID of] by switching a destination of communication via the communication terminal [e.g., Paragraph 155: transmits by a unicast with respect to the second slave display device 101-S2 to the eighth slave display device 101-S8, ID setting commands for respectively setting display device IDs of; Paragraph 155: steps S5-2 to S5-8; Fig. 15: steps S5-1 to S5-8] and
wherein the communication controller is configured to communicate with each of a plurality of slave display devices [e.g., Fig. 1: 101-S1 to 101-S8], wherein the communication controller is configured to:
perform first e.g., Paragraph 175: transmits, as described in FIG. 13, a cumulative transmission and reception initiation command in the direction of the following position in the daisy chain; Paragraph 157: sets in order from the closest network distance, which is recognized based on the transmission times, display device IDs to the slave display devices 101-S in an ascending order starting with], wherein the first communication comprises:
transmitting a first control command [e.g., Paragraph 131: transmits the cumulative transmission and reception termination command to the following position in the daisy chain (step S4-1)] to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and
receiving a first response signal from the respective slave display device [e.g., Paragraph 177: waits for a cumulative transmission and reception termination ACK transmitted by one of the slave display devices 101-S to be received (step S107-NO); Paragraph 64: a response signal such as an ACK];
measure, for each of the plurality of slave display devices, a respective response time defined between transmitting the first control command toward each of the plurality of slave display devices and receiving the first response signal from each of the plurality of slave display devices [e.g., Paragraph 214: associates the reception time (that is to say, the order) in which this cumulative transmission and reception termination ACK is received with the address of the slave display device 101-S representing the transmission source of the ACK, and stores it in the storage unit 116 (step S108A); Paragraph 206: The later this reception time becomes, the later the time at which the slave display device 101-S transmitted the ACK in response to the cumulative transmission and reception termination command also becomes; Paragraph 131: the distance determination command transmission unit 114 of the master display device 101-M transmits the cumulative transmission and reception termination command to the following position in the daisy chain (step S4-1)];
perform second one-to-one communication with each of the plurality of slave display devices in accordance with the predetermined communication order [e.g., Paragraph 153: transmits by a unicast with respect to the first slave display device 101-S1, an ID setting command that instructs the setting of a display device ID of; Paragraph 153: step S5-1; Paragraph 155: In the same manner, the identifier control unit 117 transmits by a unicast with respect to the second slave display device 101-S2 to the eighth slave display device 101-S8, ID setting commands for respectively setting display device IDs of; Paragraph 155: steps S5-2 to S5-8], wherein the second one-to-one communication comprises:
transmitting a second control command [e.g., Paragraph 153: an ID setting command] to a respective slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices; and
receiving a second response signal from the respective slave display device [e.g., Paragraph 64: if the received data is a command, the data transmission in response to the received data includes, for example, the transmission of a response with respect to the command represented by the received data, or a response signal such as an ACK],
wherein the second control command includes e.g., see Paragraphs 37-239).
Kakeko thus discloses a master display device that delivers control commands to each slave display device one at a time by unicast in a fixed order, that receives a response signal (ACK) from each slave in reply to a command, and that records, for each slave, the time at which that slave’s response is received relative to the time the command was transmitted, using those per-slave reception times to characterize each slave’s position in the chain (Paragraphs 131, 206 and 214).
Kakeko does not expressly disclose
(i) that the first round of command-and-response exchanges is itself conducted one-to-one with each slave in the predetermined order (Kakeko’s termination command is sent in the direction of the following position in the daisy chain, Paragraph 175, while Kakeko’s ID setting commands are unicast in order, Paragraphs 153 and 155),
(ii) calculating, based on the measured respective response time, a respective delay time for each slave display device, or
(iii) that the command delivered in the second round includes the respective delay time as additional information indicating a waiting time before the commanded process is executed.
To the extent Kakeko’s per-slave recording of ACK reception times (Paragraphs 206 and 214) is not itself a measurement of the claimed response time under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the express teachings of Natori (or, in the alternative, of Nishioka) set forth below are relied upon in preference.
Mizosoe discloses a video supply device that notifies each of a plurality of display devices of additional information indicating a waiting time before a process corresponding to the control information is executed, and display devices that execute the process when that waiting time has elapsed [e.g., Paragraph 28: The CPU 1005 determines, by calculation, a delay offset that delays the start of video display on the video input device 1050 by a predetermined time based on the acquired display delay time information. The video / audio signal transmission unit 1003 adds delay offset information as metadata to the video signal and transmits the video signal to the video input device 1050. In the video input device 1050, based on the received delay offset information, the delay means 1060 adds and delays the start of video display by a predetermined time; Paragraph 38: The delay means 1060 delays the display start time of the video signal by the received display delay offset, and displays the video on the display unit 1051],
the delay offset being determined individually for each display [e.g., Paragraph 30: The STB 120 transmits a video signal and its synchronization signal (vertical synchronization signal) to each of the displays 101 to 104] so that the display start timings of the plurality of displays are synchronized (e.g., see Paragraphs 28-38).
Natori discloses a main projector that performs a first communication round with each of a plurality of sub projectors in order, transmitting a synchronization signal to each sub projector and receiving a response signal from it, measures for each sub projector the response time defined between transmitting the synchronization signal and receiving the response signal, and calculates a per-device delay from that measured response time [e.g., Paragraph 85: obtains the time from the transmission of the synchronization signal to the reception of the response signal. That is, the transmission and reception time obtaining unit 62 obtains the transmission and reception time between each sub projector 2 and the main projector 1; Paragraph 89: the main projector 1 performs (issues) the Ping command; Paragraph 89: A round trip time at this time is obtained as the transmission and reception time; Paragraph 100: the main projector 1 transmits the synchronization signal to the sub projectors A and B (S41, synchronization signal transmitting and receiving process)],
the delay being half the measured round-trip time [e.g., Paragraph 85: the time which is half the transmission and reception time (transmission and reception time/2) is calculated as the synchronization adjustment time] from which a waiting time is computed for each sub projector so that all devices act at the same time [e.g., Paragraph 86: the time obtained by subtracting the synchronization adjustment time calculated for each sub projector 2 from the maximum synchronization adjustment time is used as a waiting time (transfer waiting time) when the video data is transferred to each sub projector 2; Paragraph 87: when all the sub projectors 2 completely receive the video data, the video data is output from the main projector 1];
the measurement is repeated so that changes in the network delay are corrected [e.g., Paragraph 24: the transmission and reception of the synchronization signal is performed at the predetermined time interval, and the synchronization adjustment time is recalculated in each case] (e.g., see Paragraphs 13-24 and 85-108).
Kakeko, Mizosoe and Natori are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of synchronizing the operation of a plurality of display devices that are controlled by one master device over a communication link (Kakeko, Paragraphs 1 and 12; Mizosoe, Paragraph 28; Natori, Paragraph 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
(a) include in each of Kakeko’s unicast control commands, as taught by Mizosoe, additional information indicating a waiting time before the commanded process is executed, so that the processes commanded one slave at a time are executed by all of the slave display devices at the same time rather than at the staggered times at which the unicast commands arrive
- the staggering that Kakeko itself observes in the progressively later response times of its slaves (Paragraph 206) and that Mizosoe’s delay offsets are designed to remove (Paragraph 28); and
(b) obtain that waiting time, as taught by Natori, by first conducting one-to-one command-and-response exchanges with each slave display device in Kakeko’s existing unicast order (Paragraphs 153 and 155), measuring for each slave the response time between transmitting the command and receiving the slave’s response, and calculating each slave’s delay from that measured response time,
because Natori teaches that the time taken for the transmission to each device is what causes the time lag of the outputs of the respective devices and that measuring it by a probe-and-response exchange and calculating a per-device adjustment from it allows the outputs of all the devices to be synchronized (Paragraphs 16 and 85-87).
Kakeko’s master already exchanges commands and ACK responses with each slave and already records each slave’s response arrival time (Paragraphs 64, 177 and 214),
so the modification uses Kakeko’s existing one-to-one command channel and response signals to carry Natori’s measurement round and Mizosoe’s waiting-time information, with no change in the function of any element.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
In the alternative, Nishioka discloses a multi-display control unit that performs a first communication round with each of a plurality of daisy-chained display units, transmitting a probe packet addressed to a designated display unit and receiving the returned probe packet as a response, and that measures from the exchange the communication time to each display unit [e.g., Paragraph 36: The communication time and the display processing time are obtained by transmitting the probe packet 90 to the display units 25 to 28; Paragraph 27: The transmission destination ID section 94 stores transmission destination ID information for designating a display unit that is the destination of the probe packet 90; Paragraph 96: The multi-display control unit 43 transmits the probe packet 90 to each of the display units 45 to 48, and returns the probe packet to which the time stamp is added as a response to the display unit 45 to 48, as shown in FIG. Receive from each; Paragraph 89: the multi-display control unit 23 calculates the communication time to each display unit 25 to 28 and the display processing time of each display unit 25 to 28 based on the time stamp; Figs. 12A-12D],
calculates from the measured times the time at which each display unit is to execute the display process, and delivers that time as additional information in the subsequent packets, which are transmitted one display unit at a time by switching the transmission destination ID [e.g., Paragraph 32: The display scheduled time section 56 stores display time information indicating the time when the display unit performs display; Paragraph 72: the synchronization control unit 66 obtains the scheduled display time at which the image content data is displayed on the display units 25 to 28, and sends the obtained scheduled display time to the data packet generation unit 68; Paragraph 77: the synchronization control unit 66 transmits the image data packet 50 to each of the display units 25 to 28 at an optimum timing with respect to the scheduled display time; Paragraph 45: the data packet transmission unit 70 determines the transmission destination of the image data packet 50 based on the transmission destination ID information stored in the transmission destination ID unit 54 of the header 51 of the image data packet],
each display unit standing by and executing the process at the scheduled time [e.g., Paragraph 48: The synchronization control unit 78 controls the display control unit 77 to display the image data at the scheduled display processing completion time],
the display units being connected in a daisy chain in which each unit relays packets addressed to the others [e.g., Paragraph 92: In the first embodiment described above, a multi-display system configured by connecting a plurality of display units 25 to 28 in a daisy chain has been described; Paragraph 86: the data packet control unit 70 transmits the received packet to the display unit or the multi-display control unit 23 indicated by the transmission destination ID information] (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-91 and 92-113).
Nishioka is analogous art for the same reason as Natori (Nishioka, Paragraphs 10 and 12), and it would have been obvious, for the
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
same reasons given above, to conduct Nishioka’s probe round one slave at a time over Kakeko’s unicast channel in Kakeko’s order, to calculate each slave’s waiting time from the communication time so measured, and to deliver it in Kakeko’s second-round unicast command as Mizosoe’s delay-offset information
- Nishioka teaching expressly that differences in the communication time between the control unit and each display unit prevent synchronized display unless the actual communication time to each unit is measured and the timing information delivered to each unit is set from that measurement (Paragraphs 10, 12 and 90). KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Regarding claim 18, Kakeko discloses the communication controller is configured to: transmit the first control command to an initial slave display device of the plurality of slave display devices, receive the first response signal from the initial slave display device to which the first control command was previously transmitted, switch, as a destination of communication, the initial slave display device to a next slave display device, transmit the first control command to the next slave display device, and iteratively perform, for the plurality of slave display devices, a series of transmitting the first control command, receiving the first response signal, and switching the destination of communication [e.g., Paragraph 153: transmits by a unicast with respect to the first slave display device 101-S1, an ID setting command that instructs the setting of a display device ID of; Paragraph 153: step S5-1; Paragraph 155: steps S5-2 to S5-8; Paragraph 177: waits for a cumulative transmission and reception termination ACK transmitted by one of the slave display devices 101-S to be received (step S107-NO); Fig. 15: S5-1 to S5-8]; and
the same series for the second control command and the second response signal [e.g., Paragraph 181: transmits by a unicast with respect to each of the slave display devices 101-S, ID setting commands that instruct the setting of the display device IDs determined as a result of step S111; Paragraph 64: a response signal such as an ACK].
Kakeko does not expressly disclose that the switching of the destination to the next slave display device occurs at a time when the first response signal was received (and, in the second round, at a time when the second response signal was received).
Natori discloses conducting the probe exchange with each sub projector in turn and proceeding only once the response to the outstanding signal has been received [e.g., Paragraph 100: If the synchronization signal is received from the main projector 1 (S42 and S44), the sub projectors A and B return a response signal for this signal to the main projector 1 (S43 and S45). Then, if the response signal is respectively received from the sub projectors A and B (S46, synchronization signal transmitting and receiving process), the main projector 1 obtains the transmission and reception time taken for the reception of the response signal from the transmission of the synchronization signal for the projectors A and B (S47, transmission and reception time obtaining process)];
in the alternative, Nishioka discloses waiting for the return of the outstanding probe before proceeding [e.g., Paragraph 57: the multi-display control unit 23 waits until the probe packet 90 is returned from the display unit 28].
In a one-to-one communication in which the communication terminal is directed to a single destination at a time (Kakeko, Paragraphs 153-155 and 181),
the master can address the next slave only after the exchange with the current slave is complete, and Kakeko’s master is expressly one that waits for a slave’s ACK to be received before proceeding (Paragraphs 174 and 177).
It would therefore have been obvious to switch the destination to the next slave display device at the time the current slave’s response signal is received, in both rounds, as the ordinary and most prompt way of iterating a one-to-one exchange over Kakeko’s unicast channel; doing so also ensures that the measured response time of each slave (claim 1) is not inflated by the master’s own waiting. KSR, 550 U.S. 398.
Ground B - Claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Natori as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tada (JP 2012-138712 A);
or, in the alternative, over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Nishioka as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tada.
Citations to Tada are to the English machine translation of record.
Regarding claim 19, Natori discloses adding a half of the respective response time [e.g., Paragraph 85: the time which is half the transmission and reception time (transmission and reception time/2) is calculated as the synchronization adjustment time; Paragraph 100: synchronization adjustment time Ta=half the transmission and reception time for the sub projector A, and synchronization adjustment time Tb=half the transmission and reception time for the sub projector B] and
setting each device’s waiting time so that all of the devices act at a common instant fixed by the last device to be reached [e.g., Paragraph 86: the time obtained by subtracting the synchronization adjustment time calculated for each sub projector 2 from the maximum synchronization adjustment time is used as a waiting time (transfer waiting time) when the video data is transferred to each sub projector 2; Paragraph 87: when all the sub projectors 2 completely receive the video data, the video data is output from the main projector 1].
In the alternative, Nishioka discloses calculating, from the measured time to each unit, the time each unit must wait so that all units display at the common scheduled display time [e.g., Paragraph 76: the synchronization control unit 66 calculates a necessary time from when the multi-display control unit 23 transmits the image data packet 50 to when the display processing based on the image data packet 50 is completed in each display unit 25-28; Paragraph 77: transmits the image data packet 50 to each of the display units 25 to 28 at an optimum timing with respect to the scheduled display time].
The combination as applied to claim 18 does not expressly disclose that the waiting time of a given slave display device is obtained by adding a half of its respective response time to a total sum of the respective times of two or more slave display devices that follow it (or to the respective time of one slave display device that follows it, or to nothing when no slave display device follows it).
Tada discloses a multi-display device of daisy-chained displays in which each display delays its own operation by the total of the per-device delays of the displays that follow it in the chain, so that all displays operate at the same time [e.g., Paragraph 32: In the case of daisy chain connection, the condition determination unit 21 calculates the video delay time from the number of daisy chains and the display ID number; Paragraph 33: F = | (N-n) x t / T | (1) In equation (1), F is the number of delay frames, and T is one frame period. Furthermore, t is a delay time for one daisy chain, and is a unique value in the video signal input / output device (that is, the video input unit 15 and the video output unit 16) of the display; Paragraph 24: in the display with the ID number 2 or later, the video signal sequentially transmitted from the preceding display is input; Fig. 2]
- that is, the display in position n waits (N - n) times the per-device delay, the sum of the delays of the N - n displays after it - and does so in order that the same video is displayed at the same time on all of the displays despite the sequential delivery [e.g., Paragraph 5: When displaying the same video at the same time, when displaying a single video on multiple displays, etc., if the video delay amount is different on each display, the video may be out of sync or the display position may be shifted in the scrolling video]
(e.g., see Paragraphs 5-8 and 24-40).
Tada is analogous art, being from the same field of synchronizing daisy-chained display devices that are reached sequentially (Paragraphs 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the waiting time of each slave display device in the combination of claim 18 equal to a half of that slave’s own measured response time plus the total of the measured response times of the slave display devices that follow it in the predetermined communication order (one response time when one slave follows, none when none follows), because
(i) in the combination the master reaches the slaves one at a time, each exchange taking the measured response time, and Kakeko’s master completes the round only when the last slave’s response has been received (Paragraphs 174 and 178),
so that the common execution instant taught by Natori (Paragraph 87) - the moment the last device has been reached - lies one half of a slave’s own response time plus the full response times of all later slaves after that slave receives its command;
(ii) Natori teaches that the one-way time to a device is a half of its measured round-trip time (Paragraph 85); and
(iii) Tada teaches that, for sequentially reached daisy-chained displays, the correct wait for each display is the sum of the delays of the displays that follow it (Paragraphs 32-33).
The claimed sums are the arithmetic these teachings together require for the slaves to execute the commanded process at the same time, which is the stated purpose of each of the references (Mizosoe, Paragraph 28; Natori, Paragraph 16; Tada, Paragraph 5).
KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Ground C - Claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Natori as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tada and Leyrer et al (US 2020/0014479 A1);
or, in the alternative, over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Nishioka as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tada and Leyrer.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites, for each slave display device, a calculation of the respective delay time from a half of the respective response time, the respective times of the slave display devices that follow it, and their switching times, wherein each switching time corresponds to a time required to switch the destination of communication between two consecutive slave display devices of the plurality of slave display devices.
Kakeko discloses that, as the communication passes from one slave display device to the next, a further per-device time is incurred between consecutive slave display devices and that these times accumulate along the chain [e.g., Paragraph 130: the only factor in the delay is the accumulation time of 10 msec set to the slave display devices 101-S; Paragraph 142: the first slave display device 101-S1 to the eighth slave display device 101-S8 successively transmit a cumulative transmission and reception termination ACK at a timing in which they are respectively delayed by a further 10 msec, which corresponds to the accumulation time; Fig. 13].
Natori discloses adding a half of the respective response time [e.g., Paragraph 85: the time which is half the transmission and reception time (transmission and reception time/2) is calculated as the synchronization adjustment time; Paragraph 100: synchronization adjustment time Ta=half the transmission and reception time for the sub projector A, and synchronization adjustment time Tb=half the transmission and reception time for the sub projector B] and
setting each device’s waiting time so that all of the devices act at a common instant fixed by the last device to be reached [e.g., Paragraph 86: the time obtained by subtracting the synchronization adjustment time calculated for each sub projector 2 from the maximum synchronization adjustment time is used as a waiting time (transfer waiting time) when the video data is transferred to each sub projector 2; Paragraph 87: when all the sub projectors 2 completely receive the video data, the video data is output from the main projector 1].
In the alternative, Nishioka discloses calculating, from the measured time to each unit, the time each unit must wait so that all units display at the common scheduled display time [e.g., Paragraph 76: the synchronization control unit 66 calculates a necessary time from when the multi-display control unit 23 transmits the image data packet 50 to when the display processing based on the image data packet 50 is completed in each display unit 25-28; Paragraph 77: transmits the image data packet 50 to each of the display units 25 to 28 at an optimum timing with respect to the scheduled display time] .
The combination as applied to claim 18 does not expressly disclose that the waiting time of a given slave display device is obtained by adding a half of its respective response time to a total sum of the respective times and switching times of two or more slave display devices that follow it (or to the respective time and switching time of one slave display device that follows it, or to nothing when no slave display device follows it), wherein each switching time corresponds to a time required to switch the destination of communication between two consecutive slave display devices of the plurality of slave display devices.
Tada discloses a multi-display device of daisy-chained displays in which each display delays its own operation by the total of the per-device delays of the displays that follow it in the chain, so that all displays operate at the same time [e.g., Paragraph 32: In the case of daisy chain connection, the condition determination unit 21 calculates the video delay time from the number of daisy chains and the display ID number; Paragraph 33: F = | (N-n) x t / T | (1) In equation (1), F is the number of delay frames, and T is one frame period. Furthermore, t is a delay time for one daisy chain, and is a unique value in the video signal input / output device (that is, the video input unit 15 and the video output unit 16) of the display; Paragraph 24: in the display with the ID number 2 or later, the video signal sequentially transmitted from the preceding display is input; Fig. 2]
- that is, the display in position n waits (N - n) times the per-device delay, the sum of the delays of the N - n displays after it - and does so in order that the same video is displayed at the same time on all of the displays despite the sequential delivery [e.g., Paragraph 5: When displaying the same video at the same time, when displaying a single video on multiple displays, etc., if the video delay amount is different on each display, the video may be out of sync or the display position may be shifted in the scrolling video]
(e.g., see Paragraphs 5-8 and 24-40).
Tada is analogous art, being from the same field of synchronizing daisy-chained display devices that are reached sequentially (Paragraphs 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the waiting time of each slave display device in the combination of claim 18 equal to a half of that slave’s own measured response time plus the total of the measured response times of the slave display devices that follow it in the predetermined communication order (one response time when one slave follows, none when none follows), because
(i) in the combination the master reaches the slaves one at a time, each exchange taking the measured response time, and Kakeko’s master completes the round only when the last slave’s response has been received (Paragraphs 174 and 178),
so that the common execution instant taught by Natori (Paragraph 87) - the moment the last device has been reached - lies one half of a slave’s own response time plus the full response times of all later slaves after that slave receives its command;
(ii) Natori teaches that the one-way time to a device is a half of its measured round-trip time (Paragraph 85); and
(iii) Tada teaches that, for sequentially reached daisy-chained displays, the correct wait for each display is the sum of the delays of the displays that follow it (Paragraphs 32-33).
The claimed sums are the arithmetic these teachings together require for the slaves to execute the commanded process at the same time, which is the stated purpose of each of the references (Mizosoe, Paragraph 28; Natori, Paragraph 16; Tada, Paragraph 5).
KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
To the extent Kakeko’s accumulation time is not a time required to switch the destination of communication between two consecutive slave display devices, Leyrer discloses, in a daisy chain of slave devices controlled by a master device, that the timing budget for each slave device is built from the sum of the transit times and the per-device switching (bridge) delays of the other slave devices between the master and that slave, and that each device’s forwarding to the next device incurs such a switching delay [e.g., Paragraph 65: The slave devices have variable start time for sending their In frame towards the master device. This time depends on the line delay, bridge delay and in frame size of other slaves which are between the master device and the current slave device; Paragraph 60: The first slave device receives the Time Synchronization frame and updates the master’s time (MT) with a line delay towards the master port and a local bridge delay shown by example being 320 ns; Paragraph 40: Assuming a maximum line (or cable) delay of 500 ns (100 m of cable*5 ns) plus a physical layer delay of 300 ns, plus a bridge delay of 320 ns, there is a total delay of 1,120 ns per device or 285.6 µs for a complete line of 255 RTE devices in one direction] (e.g., see Paragraphs 40 and 59-66).
Leyrer is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned - timing the actions of slave devices that a master reaches sequentially along a chain so that their actions coincide- and is therefore analogous art.
It would have been obvious to account, in the waiting time of each slave display device in the combination of claim 18, for the time required to switch the communication destination between consecutive slave display devices in addition to their response times, because Leyrer teaches that the per-device switching delay is a distinct component of the cumulative timing along a chain that must be included, together with the transit times of the intervening devices, for the devices’ actions to be aligned. KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Ground D - Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Natori as applied to claim 1 above;
or, in the alternative, over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Nishioka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimori (US 2018/0226058 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kakeko discloses the display device further comprises a display unit [e.g., Fig. 1: 101-M; Paragraph 12: a screen of a master display device], and
Natori discloses the master device is configured to perform a video control at a timing when a reference time has elapsed from a communication start time [e.g., Paragraph 87: when the above-described extracted maximum synchronization adjustment time elapses, the video data is output (image projection and sound output). That is, when all the sub projectors 2 completely receive the video data, the video data is output from the main projector 1; Paragraph 96: the main projector 1 waits for the output of the video data from the main projector 1 until the maximum synchronization adjustment time (synchronization adjustment time) elapses after the video data is transferred to the sub projector 2 (S32: No)],
it having been obvious, for the reasons given for claim 1, for Kakeko’s master display device to execute the commanded process on its own display at the common instant at which the slaves execute it.
In the alternative, Fujimori discloses a master display device that performs its own video control at a timing when a reference period has elapsed from the time its communication with the other display device begins, so that the display timings coincide [e.g., Paragraph 71: the control section 4 sets a mute period during a display start of the next moving image longer than the mute period of the projector B by the period AT. Consequently, in the projector A, the control section 4 causes the projecting section 5 to delay the next display timing of an image by the period At. Therefore, it is possible to synchronize the display timing of the next image between the projector A and the projector B; Paragraph 65: the control section 4 stores, in the storing section 3, a time shift amount AT between timing when the reproduction start notification is transmitted in step S4 and timing when the reproduction notification is received from the projector B].
Fujimori is analogous art, being from the shared field of synchronizing display devices that display a common video (Paragraph 12).
It would have been obvious for the master display device of the Kakeko-Mizosoe-Nishioka combination to perform its own video control at the common instant, as Fujimori teaches, so that the master’s display is synchronized with the slaves’ displays. KSR, 550 U.S. 398.
Ground E – Claim 24
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Natori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimori (US 2018/0226058 A1);
or, in the alternative, over Kakeko in view of Mizosoe and Nishioka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimori.
Regarding claim 24, the combinations applied to claim 1 do not expressly disclose that the second control command notifies the slave display devices of a video-muting command to mute a video in response to switching a video signal input to the respective slave display device, followed by a video-unmuting command to unmute the video after the video signal is switched and a post-switching video can be displayed correctly.
Fujimori discloses display devices that, upon a switch of the video to be displayed, mute the display by outputting a black image for a waiting period notified between the devices, and unmute the display when the switched video is ready to be displayed correctly on each device, so that the mute and unmute timings of the devices coincide [e.g., Paragraph 67: the control section 4 starts display preparation for the next moving image (e.g., switching of a readout position of moving image information from the storing section 3) (step S15); Paragraph 55: prohibits the projecting section 5 from displaying a moving image, and starts mute (display stop) in a period Td from time T3 (step S6); Paragraph 60: at time T6 when the mute in the period Td ends, the control sections 4 output moving image information to the projecting sections 5 and cause the projecting sections 5 to start moving image display (steps S13 and S14); Fig. 7: Reproduction Start Notification, mute, Td, S13, S14] (e.g., see Paragraphs 55-71).
Fujimori is analogous art, being from the shared field of synchronizing display devices that display a common video (Paragraph 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the process commanded by the second control command of the combination a video-muting operation performed when the video signal input to the slave display devices is switched, followed by a video-unmuting command once the switched video can be displayed correctly, as taught by Fujimori, so that the blanking and re-display of the common video occur simultaneously on all of the display devices and the switched video is not displayed in a disturbed state on any of them (Fujimori, Paragraphs 12 and 71). KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 August 2026 have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant asserts that the rejection is moot because the amended claims “do not include such issues” (Remarks at 18).
As set forth above, the term specific process on which the rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7 was based remains in each of those claims unchanged; the rejection is therefore maintained as to claim 1.
The antecedent-basis rejections of original claim 6 are moot in view of the amendment to claim 6 (now withdrawn), and new grounds under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) necessitated by the amendment are set forth above.
The measurement protocol (Remarks, section A).
Applicant argues that Kakeko is directed to assigning identifiers rather than to measuring a response time and calculating a delay from it, and that Mizosoe’s delay information is acquired rather than measured by the master through a preceding round of one-to-one communication.
The argument is directed to limitations added by the amendment and is addressed by the new grounds of rejection above, which were necessitated by the amendment.
The examiner agrees that Mizosoe obtains its display delay times from each display’s EDID rather than by measurement; Mizosoe is relied upon for the delivery of additional information indicating a waiting time to each display and for the displays’ execution after that waiting time has elapsed (Paragraphs 28 and 38), not for the measurement.
The measurement of a respective response time by a first round of command-and-response exchanges with each slave, and the calculation of a respective delay time from it, are taught expressly by Natori (Paragraphs 85-89 and 100-101) and,
in the alternative, by Nishioka (Paragraphs 36, 38, 89 and 96-105); and
Kakeko itself discloses a master that records, for each slave, the time at which that slave’s response to a command arrives (Paragraphs 206 and 214).
Applicant’s characterization of Kakeko as limited to identifier assignment does not address these disclosures.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Order-preserving iterative switching (Remarks, section B; claim 18).
Applicant argues that neither Kakeko nor Mizosoe discloses two ordered rounds of one-to-one communication in which the second round repeats the order of the first and switching is triggered by receipt of each response signal.
Kakeko delivers its commands by unicast to each slave in a fixed order (Paragraphs 153, 155 and 181) and waits for each slave’s response before proceeding (Paragraphs 174 and 177); the use of that order for both the measurement round and the delivery round, and the switching of the destination upon receipt of each response, are addressed in the rejection of claim 18 above.
The delay-time calculation (Remarks, section C; claims 19 and 20).
Applicant argues that neither Kakeko nor Mizosoe discloses the half-response-time apportionment scheme.
These claims are addressed by the new grounds above, which rely on Natori (half of the measured round-trip time),
Tada (waiting for the sum of the delays of the following devices) and, for the switching time of claim 20,
Kakeko’s accumulation time or, in the alternative, Leyrer’s per-device switching delay. Applicant is referred to Ground B and Ground C above.
Mute/unmute (Remarks, section D; claim 24).
Applicant argues that Fujimori’s notification is not the one-to-one, order-matched, response-time-derived delay command of the independent claims and that claim 24 is patentable by virtue of its dependency.
The independent claim is rejected as set forth above, and Fujimori is relied upon only for the content of the commanded process (mute upon a video switch, unmute when the switched video can be displayed correctly), which Applicant does not dispute Fujimori teaches.
The argument is therefore not persuasive as to claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The documents listed on the attached ‘Notice of References Cited’ form PTO-892 (Loeffler et al., US 2015/0340009 A1; Dagman, US 7,934,239 B1) further evidence the state of the art concerning interlinked display devices and the synchronization of devices reached over a communication link.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM).
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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
21 August 2026
Prosecution Insights