DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0084253).
Regarding claim 1
Li et al. shows the active receiver card for a display, the active receiver comprising:
a processor (see para. 0045-0046); and
a first interface (taken to be interface such as HDMI, see para. 0045-0046) configured to receive a broadcast serialized video data stream as input from a video processing system (para. 0045-0046);
wherein the active receiver card is configured to be electrically connected to a tile of the display (para. 0045-0046);
wherein the active receiver card further comprises a second interface (take to be connected to another receiver, see para. 0046) configured to output control signals used to control the plurality of pixels of the tile of the display (taken to be the output signals, from the receivers 120 and 130, to be displayed by an LED driver group 140 (taken to be a tile of the display) see para. 0045-0046);
wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to extract from the received broadcast serialized video data stream video image data pertaining to the tile of the display, and based thereon, the active receiver card is configured to output the control signals used to control the plurality of pixels of the tile of the display (see the output of the receivers that are connected serially, Fig. 3, modules 120a and 130a-130d and para. 0052 and 0061).
Regarding claims 2 and 14
Li et al. further shows, wherein the active receiver card receives the broadcast serialized video data stream as asymmetrical communication between the active receiver card and the video processing system (taken to be inherent to the communication between the receiver card and video processing system (10), see Fig. 3 and para. 0044, 0046, 0052 and 0061).
Regarding claims 3 and 15
Li et al. further shows, wherein the active receiver card is configured to receive through the first interface the broadcast serialized video data stream without requiring return communication or without confirmation to the video processing system (see Fig. 3 and para. 0040-0042, receiver cards 130 receives information from receiver card 120 and does not mention that there is a requirement for return).
Regarding claim 4
Li et al. further shows, wherein the active receiver card is configured to receive through the first interface the broadcast serialized video data stream, the broadcast serialized video data stream including data not pertaining to the tile of the display, or including data pertaining to other tiles (see para. 0046, plurality of second receivers 130, further distributes the receiver data to the sets of LED driver 140, i.e. 140a and 140b (see para. 0076), in a LCD display system, a pixel mapping or an interleaved pixel mapping is not required because the video data from video processor 10 is carried in a sequential manner to the receivers which are then passed on the LED drivers).
Regarding claim 5
Li et al. further shows, wherein the second interface is directly or indirectly electrically connected to a board of the first tile of the plurality of tiles of the display, the board containing one or more LEDs (taken to be directly connected by transformerless electrical wires 150, see Fig. 3 and para. 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 13
Li et al. further shows, the method for controlling with an active receiver card pixels of tile of a display the active receiver card being electrically connected to a tile of the display, the method comprising:
receiving by a first interface (taken to be interface such as HDMI, see para. 0045-0046) a broadcast serialized video data stream as input from a video processing system (see para. 0045-0046);
extracting by a processor of the active receiver card (13/120/130), from the received broadcast serialized video data stream, video image data pertaining to the tile of the display (taken to be the output signals, from the receivers 120 and 130, to be displayed by an LED driver group 140 (taken to be a tile of the display) see para. 0045-0046); and
based on the extracted video image data pertaining to the tile, outputting, by a second interface of the active receiver card (take to be connected to another receiver, see para. 0046), control signals used to control a plurality of pixels of the tile of the display (taken to be output signal from the receivers 120 and 130 for controlling the display pixels, para. 0046).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0084253) in view of Diab (US 2008/0285981).
Regarding claims 6 and 16
Li et al. further shows, in [0051]-[0052], each of the first receivers 120 and second receivers 130 can employ 8B/10B encode in transmit side and 10B/8B decode in receiver side.
However, Li does not disclose wherein the active receiver card is configured to operate asymmetrically with the video processing system such that the serialized video data stream transmitted downstream from the video processing system is transmitted at a higher bandwidth than a bandwidth of data transmitted upstream to the video processing system.
Diab discloses wherein the active receiver card is configured to operate asymmetrically with the video processing system such that the serialized video data stream transmitted downstream from the video processing system is transmitted at a higher bandwidth than a bandwidth of data transmitted upstream to the video processor ([0019] Asymmetrical Ethernet Optical PHY Functions. The upstream device may transmit high bandwidth audio at a first rate and receiver lower bandwidth data at a second data rate that may be slower standard rate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li by the system of Diab to transmit using asymmetrical ethernet optical functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to enable transmission of AVB streams at the first data rate and reception of the AVB streams at a second data rate to support any latency of bandwidth sensitive data.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0084253) in view of Hochman (US 2022/0254317, hereinafter Hochman).
Regarding claims 7 and 17
As discussed above Li et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however Li et al. does not disclose a non-volatile memory that stores at least one (x,y) coordinate of a pixel of the plurality of pixels of one of the tiles of the display that corresponds to said pixel mounted on said board of said one of the tiles, the at least one (x,y) coordinate corresponding to a particular (x,y) pixel coordinate.
Hochman discloses comprising a non-volatile memory that stores at least one (x,y) coordinate of a pixel of the plurality of pixels of the first tile of the display that corresponds to one LED that is mounted on an LED board of the first tile, the at least one (x,y) coordinate corresponding to a particular (x,y) pixel coordinate ([0008]-[0009], communicating specific x,y coordinate to deliver a packet from point A to B for a video wall).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li et al. by the system of Hochman to transmit the video data to the display tiles using a coordinate system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another to utilize a well known horizontal and vertical coordinate system for imaging rendition.
Claims 8 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2017/0084253) in view of Hochman and further in view of Mallett (US 2019/0356940, hereinafter Mallett).
Regarding claims 8 and 18
As noted above, Li et al. in combination with Hochman discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however does not disclose wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to determine a coordinate (a,b) out of the serialized video data stream, and compare the determined coordinate (a,b) to the at least one (x,y) coordinate of said pixel of the plurality of pixels.
Mallett discloses wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to determine a coordinate (a,b) out of the serialized video data stream, and compare the determined coordinate (a,b) to the at least one (x,y) coordinate of a pixel of the plurality of pixels ([0303], [0307], mapping the display of the video wall panel with the display location in the video using horizontal and vertical coordinates to determine if the display region of the video frame corresponds to said location in the video frame).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li and Hochman by the system of Mallett to determine if the video frame is in the display region. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another to ensure that the video is in the frame regions of the display or near the end of the regions of the frames.
Claims 9-12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0084253) in view of Deighton (US 2022/0014728, hereinafter Deighton).
Regarding claims 9 and 19
As discussed above, Li et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed however does not show wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to extract a corresponding pixel value from the serialized video data stream.
Deighton discloses wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to extract a corresponding pixel value from the serialized video data stream (see para [0029], [0076] that shows values calculated for the LED pixels determine which pixels are illuminated and the color and the intensity of the pixels), in order to compensate for viewing angle of the screen in real time such that a smooth output is produced (see para. 0002).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modified the teachings of Li by the system of Deighton to calculate the values for the LED pixels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to adjust the illumination, color, and intensity of the pixels being displayed and compensate for viewing angle of the screen in real time such that a smooth output is produced, as suggested by Deighton in para. 0002.
Regarding claims 10 and 20
Li et al. in combination with Deighton further shows, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 9. In addition, Deighton discloses wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to perform at least one mathematical operation on the corresponding pixel value (see para [0082]-[0084], that shows calculating gain factors).
Regarding claim 11
Li et al. in combination with Deighton further shows, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 9. In addition, Deighton discloses wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to convert an outcome of the at least one mathematical operation to an output that can be interfaced with the second interface (see para. 0082-0084 the shows calculating gain factors).
Regarding claim 12
Li et al. in combination with Deighton further shows, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 9. In addition, Deighton discloses wherein the processor of the active receiver card is configured to send corresponding signals to a board of the first tile containing one or more LEDs, to light up the LEDs in correspondence with the outcome of the at least one mathematical operation (see para [0082]-[0084], that shows calculating gain factors for the video’s pixel brightness).
Double Patenting
In order to expedite prosecution even though the claims have not been allowed, a double patenting rejection is provided below for applicant consideration.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,506,923.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1-21, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 1-15 respectively. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application. For example: claims 11-12 are met by patent claims 1-14; claims 13-20 are met by patent claims 1-14; and claim 21 is met by patent claim 15.
The instant application claims therefore taken to be generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/322,279.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1-21, include all of the limitations of the copending claims 1-21 respectively. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the copending application, and therefore all of the limitations of the copending claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application. For example: claims 1-12 are met by copending claims 1-12; claims 13-20 are met by copending claims 13-20; and claim 21 is met by copending claim 21.
The claims of the copending application include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective claims of the copending application. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the claims of the copending application and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the claims of the copending application and the instant application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the claims of the copending application, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21
The prior art of record, Li et al. (US 2017/0084253), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the video processing system, as recited in claim 21, having the combination elements, along with having the further limitations which include:
wherein the video processor outputs both the first portion of the serialized video data stream and the second portion of the serialized video data stream combined as a single broadcast data stream to an active first receiver card corresponding to the first tile of the display and to a second active receiver card corresponding to the second tile of the display, as set forth in claim 21.
Further, even though Li et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claim 21, noted above.
Also, none of the prior art of record teaches wherein the video processor outputs both the first portion of the serialized video data stream and the second portion of the serialized video data stream combined as a single broadcast data stream to an active first receiver card corresponding to the first tile of the display and to a second active receiver card corresponding to the second tile of the display, as recited in claim 21.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Li et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng (US 2010/0177016), shows a first interface (see Fig. 3 and para. 0036-0037, receiver RX 302), and a second interface wherein the active receiver card is configured to be connected to a tile of the display (see the abstract, Fig. 3 and receiver 302).
Wang et al. (US 2021/0329265), show a modular display system configured to broadcast a serialized video data stream, comprising: a display for displaying the serialized video data stream, wherein the display comprising a plurality of tiles, a video processing system and a receiver card/chip/circuit (see the abstract, Figs. 1-12 and para. 0064- 0091).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD N. EDUN/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2629
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights