DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to the claimed subject matter: “the second wiring is a wiring through which information indicating that the second communication was requested is transferred from the first device” (claim 3) and “second communication is requested from the second device” (claim 1).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what the metes, bounds, scope, and meaning of the above contradictory limitations are intended to be.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of Masuoka et al (US 2017/0280327 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Acharya discloses a control method of a display system including
a first device [e.g., Fig. 1: 127, 151],
a second device [e.g., Fig. 1: 121, 123, 125, 150], and
a display device [e.g., Fig. 1: 110; Fig. 26]
that is configured to communicate with the first device via one or more wired cables [e.g., Fig. 1: 112, 148],
that is configured to communicate with the second device by wireless communication [e.g., Fig. 1: 114, 141, 143, 145], and
that is configured to display an image on a display region [e.g., Fig. 1: Trends; Paragraph 36: projecting video onto a projection screen],
the control method comprising:
establishing, by the display device, first communication [e.g., Fig. 5: 510-540; Fig. 6: 610-630] with the first device via the one or more wired cables;
when second communication is requested [e.g., Fig. 5: 550; Fig. 6: 640, 670] from the second device while an image is displayed on the display region [e.g., Fig. 5: 540],
transmitting, by the display device [e.g., see Paragraphs 52, 102: all client requests may be handled through the supervisor daemon], information [e.g., Fig. 5: 560; Fig. 6: 640, 670] indicating that the second communication between the second device and the display device was requested to the first device via the one or more wired cables; and
when receiving information [e.g., Fig. 5: 570; Fig. 6: 650, 680] indicating that the second communication was approved from the first device via the one or more wired cables,
establishing, by the display device, the second communication [e.g., Fig. 5: 580; Fig. 6: 640, 680, 690; Paragraph 102] by wireless communication (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-127).
Should it be shown Acharya discloses one or more wired cables, as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity:
Masuoka discloses a control method of a display system including
a first device [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: 1],
a second device [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: 2], and
a display device [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: 3]
that is configured to communicate with the first device via one or more wired cables [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: 41; Paragraph 43: the connection 41 may be a wired connection],
that is configured to communicate with the second device by wireless communication [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: 42], and
that is configured to display an image on a display region [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: 31; Paragraph 33: display function 31 is the function of projecting and displaying a moving image or a still image on a screen for the projector 3],
the control method comprising:
establishing [e.g., Fig. 5: S11], by the display device, first communication with the first device via the one or more wired cables;
when second communication is requested [e.g., Fig. 5: S12, S14, S15] from the second device while an image is displayed [e.g., Fig. 5: S11, S15] on the display region,
transmitting, by the display device, information [e.g., Fig. 5: S16] indicating that the second communication between the second device and the display device was requested to the first device via the one or more wired cables; and
when receiving information [e.g., Paragraph 100: terminal 1 transmits information on a confirmation response to the projector 3… the terminal 1 transmits a response indicating the continuance] indicating that the second communication was approved from the first device via the one or more wired cables,
establishing, by the display device, the second communication [e.g., Fig. 5: S17 continuance] by wireless communication (e.g., see Paragraphs 28-228).
Acharya and Masuoka are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of shared display systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Masuoka’s wired connection with Acharya’s display system, so as to achieve convenience while also ensuring security.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Masuoka’s wired connection with Acharya’s display system as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 2, Acharya discloses the display system in which the first communication and the second communication are established further includes
a third device [e.g., Fig. 1: 121, 123, 125, 150] configured to communicate with the display device by wireless communication and further comprising:
when third communication is requested [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] from the third device while an image is displayed on the display region,
transmitting, by the display device [e.g., see Paragraphs 52, 102: all client requests may be handled through the supervisor daemon], information [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] indicating that the third communication between the third device and the display device was requested to at least one of the first device and the second device and
when receiving information [e.g., Fig. 6: 650, 680] indicating that the third communication was approved from the first device or from the second device,
establishing, by the display device, the third communication [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 680, 690; Paragraph 102] by wireless communication (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-127).
Regarding claim 5, Acharya discloses the second device is set to a first mode [e.g., Fig. 5: 580; Fig. 6: 640, 680, 690] in which an image based on image data transmitted from the second device is displayed so as to occupy the display region and further comprising:
when the third communication is requested [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] from the third device while an image is displayed on the display region,
transmitting, by the display device [e.g., see Paragraphs 52, 102: all client requests may be handled through the supervisor daemon], information [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] indicating that the third communication was requested to the first device via the one or more wired cables and
when receiving information [e.g., Fig. 6: 650, 680] indicating that the third communication was approved from the first device via the one or more wired cables,
establishing, by the display device, the third communication [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 680, 690; Paragraph 102] by wireless communication (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-127).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of VESA (“VESA BRINGS DISPLAYPORT TO NEW USB TYPE-C CONNECTOR”); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of Masuoka et al (US 2017/0280327 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VESA (“VESA BRINGS DISPLAYPORT TO NEW USB TYPE-C CONNECTOR”).
Regarding claim 3, Acharya and Masuoka don’t appear to expressly disclose first and second wiring, as instantly claimed.
However, VESA discloses one or more wired cables is one wired cable, the one wired cable includes a first wiring for transferring image data and a second wiring for transferring control data, the first wiring is a wiring through which image data indicating an image displayed on the display region is transferred from the first device, and the second wiring is a wiring through which information indicating that the second communication was requested is transferred from the first device (e.g., see Page 4: The DisplayPort Alt Mode repurposes some or all of the four existing SuperSpeed USB lanes to deliver full DisplayPort performance, and uses other signaling available in the USB Type-C connector for DisplayPort’s AUX channel; Page 5: the DisplayPort Alt Mode can choose to transmit on just one or two of the four available lanes, so that the other two lanes can be used for SuperSpeed USB data at the same time; see Pages 4-6).
Acharya, Masuoka and VESA are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine VESA’s first and second wiring with Acharya’s (or Acharya’s and Masuoka’s) display system, so as to advance display performance and connectivity for platforms that are increasingly integrated and compact.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined VESA’s first and second wiring with Acharya’s (or Acharya’s and Masuoka’s) display system as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of Findlay (US 2013/0201209 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of Masuoka et al (US 2017/0280327 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Findlay (US 2013/0201209 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Acharya and Masuoka don’t appear to expressly disclose storing a program, as instantly claimed.
However, Findlay discloses when the first device [e.g., Fig. 3: 302] does not store a program for controlling communication of the display device [e.g., Fig. 3: 130],
causing, by the display device, the first device to store the program [e.g., Fig. 3: provide bootstrap software; Paragraphs 18-20, 39: When a user clicks on the link, the bootstrap software is downloaded to memory of the user's network device],
wherein information indicating that the second communication was approved is transmitted from the first device that executed the program stored in the first device to the display device (e.g., see Paragraphs 38-54).
Acharya, Masuoka and Findlay are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Findlay’s storing a program functionality with Acharya’s (or Acharya’s and Masuoka’s) display system, so as to resolve technical issues.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Findlay’s storing a program functionality with Acharya’s (or Acharya’s and Masuoka’s) display system as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 6, Findlay discloses when the first device is set to a second mode, an image based on first image data transmitted from the first device [e.g., Fig. 4: 410] is displayed on a first partial region [e.g., Fig. 4: 452] that is a part of the display region and
when the second device [e.g., Fig. 4: 420] is set to the second mode, an image based on second image data transmitted from the second device is displayed on a second partial region [e.g., Fig. 4: 454] that is a part of the display region and that is different from the first partial region (e.g., see Paragraphs 18-54).
Acharya discloses when the second device is set, from the second mode, to a third mode [e.g., Paragraph 92: A Freeze Frame button 2210 may be provided, enabling users to stop any motion in an ongoing video or other presentation; Paragraph 84: If the user wishes the presentation to be blanked or hidden, the user may select the Hide Screen button 1330… As an alternative to blanking the display, the Hide Screen button 1330 may cause the display device to present a pre-determined graphic selected by the user] in which the second device does not update an image displayed on the display device,
stopping, by the display device, update of an image of the second partial region based on the second image data after the second device is set to the third mode [e.g., Paragraph 92: A Freeze Frame button 2210 may be provided, enabling users to stop any motion in an ongoing video or other presentation; Paragraph 84: If the user wishes the presentation to be blanked or hidden, the user may select the Hide Screen button 1330… As an alternative to blanking the display, the Hide Screen button 1330 may cause the display device to present a pre-determined graphic selected by the user];
when the first device is set to the second mode and the third communication is requested [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] from the third device while the second device is set to the third mode,
transmitting, by the display device [e.g., see Paragraphs 52, 102: all client requests may be handled through the supervisor daemon] to the second device, information [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670, 680] indicating that the third communication was requested; and
when receiving information [e.g., Fig. 6: 650, 680] indicating that the third communication was approved from the second device,
establishing, by the display device, the third communication [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 680, 690; Paragraph 102] by wireless communication (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-127).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of Anderson et al (US 2014/0111597 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Acharya et al (US 2005/0036509 A1) in view of Masuoka et al (US 2017/0280327 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson et al (US 2014/0111597 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Acharya discloses when the third communication is requested [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] from the third device while an image is displayed on the display region,
transmitting, by the display device [e.g., see Paragraphs 52, 102: all client requests may be handled through the supervisor daemon], information [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 670] indicating that the third communication was requested to the first device or the second device and
in response to receiving, from one of the first device and the second device, information [e.g., Fig. 6: 650, 680] indicating that the third communication was approved or information indicating that the third communication was denied,
transmitting, by the display device to an other of the first device and the second device, information [e.g., Fig. 6: 640, 660, 680, 690; Paragraph 102] indicating that a determination of whether or not to approve the third communication was completed (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-127).
Acharya and Masuoka don’t appear to expressly disclose transmitting information indicating that the third communication was requested to the first device and the second device, as instantly claimed.
However, Anderson discloses transmitting, by the display device [e.g., Fig. 1: 101, 102, 103, 105, 109], information [e.g., Fig. 27: 211] indicating that a third communication was requested [e.g., Fig. 4: 2700, 2701, 2702; Paragraph 37: by pressing a button] to the first device [e.g., Fig. 1: 104] and the second device [e.g., Fig. 1: 106] (e.g., see Figs. 4, 12d, 27, Paragraphs 37-40, 164-166, 399-409).
Acharya, Masuoka and Anderson are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Anderson’s multi-user device notification functionality with Acharya’s (or Acharya’s and Masuoka’s) display system, so as to provide convenient communication between multiple users.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Anderson’s multi-user device notification functionality with Acharya’s (or Acharya’s and Masuoka’s) display system as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
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' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to display systems.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights