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 § 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.
If a rationale for combination of references for a dependent claim is not expressly stated, it should be presumed to be the same as that stated earlier for the same combination of references.
Note that citations to figures and elements should be understood to also implicitly refer to any pertinent explanatory text in the reference.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 14, 16, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick).
Regarding claim 1, Sim teaches a display device (Abstract; Fig. 4B), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4B);
a display screen mounted to said housing (Fig. 4B at 435);
a processor disposed within said housing and operatively connected to said display screen (Fig. 1 at 101);
a memory system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 105, 118);
a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 109, 122, 123).
Sim does not expressly teach said communications interface system receiving artwork data relating to audio source material, said processor operating said display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device. Clayton teaches a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with a processor ([47]), said communications interface system receiving artwork data relating to audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra), said processor operating said display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]). The suggestion to combine the teachings of Sim and Clayton is present as both teach displays. The motivation is to implement a display to use with the teaching of Clayton. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Clayton and Sim teach displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim and Clayton would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with a processor, said communications interface system receiving artwork data relating to audio source material, said processor operating said display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device.
Sim and Clayton do not expressly teach said processor operating said display screen so that the artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen. Warrick teaches that artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen ([249]). The suggestion to modify the combination of Sim and Clayton by the teaching of Warrick is present as Clayton teaches artwork data relating to audio source material and Warrick teaches artwork data relating to audio source material. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a different type of artwork metadata relating to audio source material than Warrick teaches, Clayton teaches that many types of related metadata are possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of artwork data relating to audio source material taught by Warrick could be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, and Warrick would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, said processor operating said display screen so that the artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen.
Regarding claim 4, Sim further teaches wherein said housing is configured to receive said display screen so that the combination of said housing and said display screen defines a bezel along a bottom portion of said display screen (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 6, Sim further teaches wherein said housing defines a base of said display device and wherein said display screen defines a face portion of said display device, the face portion not being substantially perpendicular to the base so that when the base of said display device is placed on a surface, the face portion is angled upwardly with respect to the surface (Figs. 3, 4B).
Regarding claim 9, Sim further teaches wherein said communications interface system comprises a wireless communications interface system (Fig. 1 at 109, 123). Clayton also further teaches wherein said communications interface system comprises a wireless communications interface system ([30], [38], [50]).
Regarding claim 10, Sim further teaches wherein said communications interface system comprises a wired communications interface system (Fig. 1 at 109, 122). Clayton also further teaches wherein said communications interface system comprises a wired communications interface system ([30], [38], [50])
Regarding claim 14, Sim further teaches wherein said display screen comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (5:44-46).
Regarding claim 16, Sim further teaches the display device further comprising an audio transducer operatively associated with said processor (6:28-34: speakers).
Regarding claim 25, Sim teaches providing a display device (Abstract; Fig. 4B) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4B);
a display screen mounted to said housing (Fig. 4B at 435);
a processor disposed within said housing and operatively connected to said display screen (Fig. 1 at 101);
a memory system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 105, 118);
a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 109, 122, 123).
Sim does not expressly teach a method of displaying artwork data associated with audio source material, comprising operating the display device to receive at the display device, via said communications interface system, artwork data relating to audio source material, the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from the display device. Clayton teaches a method of displaying artwork data associated with audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100] ; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra), comprising providing a display device (Abstract; [24], [100]) comprising a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor ([47]); operating the display device to receive at the display device, via said communications interface system, artwork data relating to audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]), the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from the display device (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]). The suggestion to combine the teachings of Sim and Clayton is present as both teach displays. The motivation is to implement a display to use with the teaching of Clayton. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Clayton and Sim teach displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim and Clayton would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method of displaying artwork data associated with audio source material, comprising providing a display device comprising a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor; and operating the display device to receive at the display device, via said communications interface system, artwork data relating to audio source material, the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from the display device.
Sim and Clayton do not expressly teach the processor of the display device operating the display screen so that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen. Warrick teaches that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen ([249]). The suggestion to modify the combination of Sim and Clayton by the teaching of Warrick is present as Clayton teaches artwork data relating to audio source material and Warrick teaches artwork data relating to audio source material. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a different type of artwork metadata relating to audio source material than Warrick teaches, Clayton teaches that many types of related metadata are possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of artwork data relating to audio source material taught by Warrick could be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, and Warrick would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the processor of the display device operating the display screen so that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen.
Regarding claim 27, Clayton further teaches wherein the artwork data comprise a portion of audio metadata associated with the audio source material, wherein said method further comprises removing from the audio metadata data unrelated to the artwork data ([98]-[103]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0164156 A1 (Fitzgerald).
Regarding claim 2, Sim does not expressly teach wherein said housing is configured to receive said display screen so that the combination of said housing and said display screen appears to be bezel-less. Fitzgerald teaches bezel-less displays ([32]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Fitzgerald is present as both teach displays. The motivation is aesthetic preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a missing bezel on three sides and Fitzgerald teaches bezel-less displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Fitzgerald would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein said housing is configured to receive said display screen so that the combination of said housing and said display screen appears to be bezel-less.
Regarding claim 3, Sim does not expressly teach wherein said housing is configured to receive said display screen so that the combination of said housing and said display screen lacks a bezel. Fitzgerald teaches that a display screen may lack a bezel ([32]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Fitzgerald is present as both teach displays. The motivation is aesthetic preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a missing bezel on three sides and Fitzgerald teaches bezel-less displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Fitzgerald would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein said housing is configured to receive said display screen so that the combination of said housing and said display screen lacks a bezel.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0010755 A1 (Tanaka).
Regarding claim 5, Sim teaches wherein said housing defines a base of said display device and wherein said display screen defines a face portion of said display device (Fig. 4B). Sim does not expressly teach the face portion being substantially perpendicular to the base so that when the base of said display device is placed on a surface, the face portion is substantially perpendicular to the surface. Tanaka teaches the face portion being substantially perpendicular to the base so that when the base of said display device is placed on a surface, the face portion is substantially perpendicular to the surface (Fig. 7). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Tanaka is present as both teach a display. The motivation is user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display and Tanaka teaches a display. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Tanaka would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the face portion being substantially perpendicular to the base so that when the base of said display device is placed on a surface, the face portion is substantially perpendicular to the surface.
Regarding claim 7, Sim does not expressly teach at least one user input device mounted to said housing, said at least one user input device being operatively associated with said processor to control one or more functions of said display device. Tanaka teaches at least one user input device mounted to said housing, said at least one user input device being operatively associated with said processor to control one or more functions of said display device ([80]-[81]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Tanaka is present as both teach a display. The motivation is user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display and Tanaka teaches a display. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Tanaka would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least one user input device mounted to said housing, said at least one user input device being operatively associated with said processor to control one or more functions of said display device.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka further teaches wherein said at least one user input device comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of buttons, knobs, and switches ([80]-[81]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0247266 A1 (Young).
Regarding claim 11, Sim does not expressly teach wherein said display screen has a width-to-height aspect ratio of about 1:1. Young teaches wherein said display screen has a width-to-height aspect ratio of about 1:1 ([21]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Young is present as both teach display screens. The motivation is aesthetic preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display screen and Young teaches a display screen. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Young would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein said display screen has a width-to-height aspect ratio of about 1:1.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2002/0026734 A1 (Bayrle).
Regarding claim 12, Sim does not expressly teach wherein said display screen has a resolution of less than about 49 pixels/cm2. Bayrle teaches wherein said display screen has a resolution of less than about 49 pixels/cm2 ([23], Claim 2). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Bayrle is present as both teach displays. The motivation is user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display screen and Bayrle teaches a display screen. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Bayrle would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein said display screen has a resolution of less than about 49 pixels/cm2.
Regarding claim 13, Bayrle does not expressly teach wherein said display screen has a resolution of 16 pixels/cm2. However, Bayrle does teach a resolution range of 2 to 30 pixels per square centimeter ([23]; Claim 2). This range contains the value of 16 pixels per square centimeter, and renders the value obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a value of 16 pixels per square centimeter as a matter of preference, there being no technical obstacle to its selection. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Bayrle would have rendered obvious wherein said display screen has a resolution of 16 pixels/cm2.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0192548 A1 (“Glen”).
Regarding claim 15, Sim does not expressly teach wherein said display has a maximum luminance greater than about 1500 candelas per square meter (cd/m2). Glen teaches wherein a display has a maximum luminance greater than about 1500 candelas per square meter (cd/m2) ([21]: maximum luminance is 2000 nits). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Glen is present as both teach displays. The motivation is aesthetic design choice or user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display screen and Glen teaches a display screen. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Glen would have rendered obvious wherein said display has a maximum luminance greater than about 1500 candelas per square meter (cd/m2).
Claims 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2017/0010755 A1 (Tanaka), US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton), US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick), and US 2014/0247266 A1 (Young).
Regarding claim 17, Sim teaches a display device (Abstract; Fig. 4B), comprising:
a housing, said housing defining a base, a top side, a left side, a right side, and, the base, top, left, and right sides defining an open front of said housing (Fig. 4B);
a display screen mounted to the open front of said housing so that said display screen defines a generally rectangular face portion of said display device (Fig. 4B at 435);
a processor disposed within the display device and operatively associated with said display screen (Fig. 1 at 101);
a memory system disposed within the display device and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 105, 118);
a communications interface system disposed within the display device and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 109, 122, 123).
Sim does not expressly teach, though it is highly implied, a back side, the base, top, left, right, and back defining an open front, so that said display screen and said housing define an interior cavity therein, in which the processor, memory system, and communications interface system are disposed. Tanaka teaches a back side, the base, top, left, right, and back defining an open front (Fig. 5), so that said display screen and said housing define an interior cavity therein (Fig.5), in which electronics are disposed ([65]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Tanaka is present as both teach flat screen displays. The motivation is to protect the internal components of the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim and Tanaka both teach displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim and Tanaka would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a back side, the base, top, left, right, and back sides defining an open front, so that said display screen and said housing define an interior cavity therein; a processor disposed within the interior cavity; a memory system disposed within the interior cavity; a communications interface system disposed within the interior cavity.
Sim does not teach expressly teach that the rectangular face is a square face. Young teaches wherein said display screen has a width-to-height aspect ratio of about 1:1, i.e. has a square face ([21]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Young is present as both teach display screens. The motivation is aesthetic preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display screen and Young teaches a display screen. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim and Young would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, that said display screen defines a generally square face portion.
Sim does not expressly teach said communications interface system receiving artwork data relating to audio source material, said processor operating said display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device. Clayton teaches a communications interface system disposed within a housing and operatively associated with a processor ([47]), said communications interface system receiving artwork data relating to audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100] ; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra), said processor operating said display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]). The suggestion to combine the teachings of Sim and Clayton is present as both teach displays. The motivation is to implement a display to use with the teaching of Clayton. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Clayton and Sim teach displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Tanaka, Young, and Clayton would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a communications interface system disposed within the interior cavity and operatively associated with a processor, said communications interface system receiving artwork data relating to audio source material, said processor operating said display screen to display the artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device.
Sim, Tanaka, Young, and Clayton do not expressly teach said processor operating said display screen so that the artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen. Warrick teaches that artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen ([249]). The suggestion to modify the combination of Sim and Clayton by the teaching of Warrick is present as Clayton teaches artwork data relating to audio source material and Warrick teaches artwork data relating to audio source material. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a different type of artwork metadata relating to audio source material than Warrick teaches, Clayton teaches that many types of related metadata are possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of artwork data relating to audio source material taught by Warrick could be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Tanaka, Young, Clayton, and Warrick would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, said processor operating said display screen so that the artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen.
Regarding claim 21, Sim further teaches wherein the base of said housing defines a base of said display device and wherein said display screen defines a face portion of said display device, the face portion not being substantially perpendicular to the base of said display device so that when the base of said display device is placed on a surface, the face portion is angled upwardly with respect to the surface (Figs. 3, 4B).
Regarding claim 22, Sim does not expressly teach at least one user input device mounted to said housing, said at least one user input device being operatively associated with said processor to control one or more functions of said display device. Tanaka teaches at least one user input device mounted to said housing, said at least one user input device being operatively associated with said processor to control one or more functions of said display device ([80]-[81]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Tanaka is present as both teach a display with a base. The motivation is user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display with a base and Tanaka teaches a display with a base. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, Tanaka, and Young would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least one user input device mounted to said housing, said at least one user input device being operatively associated with said processor to control one or more functions of said display device.
Regarding claim 23, Sim further teaches wherein said display screen comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (5:44-46).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2017/0010755 A1 (Tanaka), US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton), US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick), and US 2014/0247266 A1 (Young) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 18, Sim, Tanaka, Clayton, Warrick, and Young do not expressly teach a power source operatively connected to said display screen, said processor, said memory system, and said communications interface system. Official notice is taken that power sources were well known in the art of electronics. It is necessary to have some kind of power source for each electronic element, whether a single source or multiple sources, and this necessity means it certainly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a power source operatively connected to said display screen, said processor, said memory system, and said communications interface system. The motivation would have been to be able to operate the device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2017/0010755 A1 (Tanaka), US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton), US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick), US 2014/0247266 A1 (Young), and official notice as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 2020/0396527 A1 (Hockman).
Regarding claim 19, Sim, Tanaka, Clayton, Warrick, and Young do not expressly teach wherein said housing comprises wood. Hockman teaches wherein a display housing comprises wood ([19]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Hockman is present as Sim teaches a display housing and Hockman teaches that a display housing may comprise wood. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display housing and Hockman teaches that a display housing may comprise wood. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Tanaka, Clayton, Warrick, Young, and Hockman would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein a display housing comprises wood.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2017/0010755 A1 (Tanaka), US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton), US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick), US 2014/0247266 A1 (Young), US 2020/0396527 A1 (Hockman), and official notice as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2022/0164156 A1 (Fitzgerald).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sim and Young render obvious that the display has a square face, as explained above. Sim, Tanaka, Clayton, Warrick, Young, and Hockman do not expressly teach that the display screen has about the same dimensional extent as the open front of said housing and appears to be bezel-less, but Fitzgerald teaches bezel-less displays ([32]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Fitzgerald is present as both teach displays. The motivation is aesthetic preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a missing bezel on three sides and Fitzgerald teaches bezel-less displays. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Tanaka, Clayton, Warrick, Young, Hockman and Fitzgerald would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the open front of said housing is substantially square and wherein the display screen is substantially square and has about the same dimensional extent as the open front of said housing so that the combination of said housing and said display screen appears to be bezel-less.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2017/0010755 A1 (Tanaka), US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton), US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick), and US 2014/0247266 A1 (Young) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 2020/0192548 A1 (“Glen”).
Regarding claim 24, Regarding claim 15, Sim does not expressly teach wherein said display has a maximum luminance greater than about 1500 candelas per square meter (cd/m2). Glen teaches wherein a display has a maximum luminance greater than about 1500 candelas per square meter (cd/m2) ([21]: maximum luminance is 2000 nits). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Sim by the teaching of Glen is present as both teach displays. The motivation is aesthetic design choice or user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Sim teaches a display screen and Glen teaches a display screen. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Tanaka, Clayton, Warrick, and Glen would have rendered obvious wherein said display has a maximum luminance greater than about 1500 candelas per square meter (cd/m2).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 26, Clayton and Warrick do not expressly teach normalizing the artwork data before the artwork data are displayed on the display screen. Official notice is taken that normalization of image data is a well-known technique in image processing. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Clayton by the technique of image data normalization is present as Clayton teaches transmitting image data. The motivation is to put the image data into a scale format that makes it easier to work with. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because normalization of image data is a well-known technique in image processing. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Clayton, Warrick, and official notice would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, normalizing the artwork data before the artwork data are displayed on the display screen.
Claims 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) and US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of US 2021/0011961 A1 (Guan).
Regarding claim 28, Clayton further teaches wherein the audio source material is provided by a plurality of Service Clients ([37], [62]-[64]). Clayton does not expressly teach wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to assign a user priority to each of the plurality of Service Clients. Guan teaches to assign a user priority to each of a plurality of Service Clients ([35], [83]-[86]). The suggestion to modify teaching of Clayton by the teaching of Guan is present as Clayton teaches a plurality of Service Clients and Guan teaches assigning a user priority to each of a plurality of Service Clients. The motivation is to provide the most relevant data (for example, the most relevant music to a request). The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a plurality of Service Clients and Guan teaches assigning a user priority to each of a plurality of Service Clients. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and Guan would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to assign a user priority to each of the plurality of Service Clients.
Regarding claim 29, Guan further teaches wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to: associating contextual data sources with at least some of the plurality of Service Clients; and assigning a metaprioritization value (MPV) to each contextual data source based on contextual data ([35], [59], [83]-[86]).
Regarding claim 30, Guan further teaches wherein assigning a MPV to each contextual data source comprises assigning an MPV to each contextual data source based on data from each corresponding contextual data source ([35], [37], [57], [59], [83]-[86]).
Regarding claim 31, Guan further teaches determining a state for each of the plurality of Service Clients; determining the MPV of corresponding contextual data sources of the Service Clients in a Playing State; and selecting as a chosen Service Client that Service Client with the highest MPV ([35], [37], [57], [59], [83]-[86]).
Regarding claim 32, Guan further teaches wherein at least some of the Service Clients have associated with them a plurality of contextual data sources, and wherein said instructions further comprise instructions that, for each Service Client that comprises a plurality of contextual data sources, assign an MPV for the Service Client the highest MPV of the MPVs of each of the plurality of contextual data sources ([35], [37], [57], [59], [83]-[86]).
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0319846 A1 (“Clayton”) in view of US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick).
Regarding claim 33, Clayton teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon (Abstract, [21], [24], [48], [68]) that, when executed by at least one computer processor ([21], [24]), cause the at least one computer processor to operate a display device operatively associated with a content player separate from the display device to receive at the display device, via a communications interface system of the display device (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]), artwork data relating to audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra), a processor of the display device operating a display screen of the display device to display the artwork data when audio source material is being played by the content player (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]).
Clayton does not expressly teach the processor of the display device operating the display screen so that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen. Warrick teaches that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen ([249]). The suggestion to modify the combination of Sim and Clayton by the teaching of Warrick is present as Clayton teaches artwork data relating to audio source material and Warrick teaches artwork data relating to audio source material. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a different type of artwork metadata relating to audio source material than Warrick teaches, Clayton teaches that many types of related metadata are possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of artwork data relating to audio source material taught by Warrick could be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Clayton and Warrick would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the processor of the display device operating the display screen so that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen.
Regarding claim 35, Clayton teaches wherein the artwork data comprise a portion of audio metadata associated with the audio source material, wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to remove from the audio metadata data unrelated to the artwork data before the artwork data are displayed on the display screen ([98]-[103]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) in view of US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 34, Clayton does not expressly teach instructions to normalize the artwork data before the artwork data are displayed on the display screen. Official notice is taken that normalization of image data is a well-known technique in image processing. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Clayton by the technique of image data normalization is present as Clayton teaches transmitting image data. The motivation is to put the image data into a scale format that makes it easier to work with. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because normalization of image data is a well-known technique in image processing. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Clayton, Warrick, and official notice would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, instructions to normalize the artwork data before the artwork data are displayed on the display screen.
Claims 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton) in view of US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of US 2021/0011961 A1 (Guan).
Regarding claim 36, Clayton teaches wherein the audio source material is provided by a plurality of Service Clients ([37], [62]-[64]). Clayton does not expressly teach wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to assign a user priority to each of the plurality of Service Clients. Guan teaches to assign a user priority to each of a plurality of Service Clients ([35], [83]-[86]). The suggestion to modify teaching of Clayton by the teaching of Guan is present as Clayton teaches a plurality of Service Clients and Guan teaches assigning a user priority to each of a plurality of Service Clients. The motivation is to provide the most relevant data (for example, the most relevant music to a request). The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a plurality of Service Clients and Guan teaches assigning a user priority to each of a plurality of Service Clients. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Clayton, Warrick, and Guan would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to assign a user priority to each of the plurality of Service Clients.
Regarding claim 37, Guan further teaches wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to: associate contextual data sources with at least some of the plurality of Service Clients; and assign a metaprioritization value (MPV) to each contextual data source based on contextual data ([35], [59], [83]-[86]).
Regarding claim 38, Guan further teaches wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to: determine a state for each of the plurality of Service Clients; determine the MPV of corresponding contextual data sources of the Service Clients in a Playing State; and select as a chosen Service Client that Service Client with the highest MPV ([35], [37], [57], [59], [83]-[86]).
Regarding claim 39, Guan further teaches wherein at least some of the Service Clients have associated with them a plurality of contextual data sources, and wherein said instructions further comprise instructions that, for each Service Client that comprises a plurality of contextual data sources, assign an MPV for the Service Client the highest MPV of the MPVs of each of the plurality of contextual data sources ([35], [37], [57], [59], [83]-[86]).
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11976977 B2 (Sim) in view of US 2020/0319846 A1 (Clayton), US 2013/0346564 A1 (Warrick) and official notice.
Regarding claim 40, Sim teaches a display device (Abstract; Fig. 4B), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4B);
a display screen mounted to said housing (Fig. 4B at 435);
a processor disposed within said housing and operatively connected to said display screen (Fig. 1 at 101);
a memory system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 105, 118);
a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 109, 122, 123);
Sim does not expressly teach said communications interface system receiving audio metadata data relating to audio source material, the audio metadata including artwork data and other data, said processor normalizing the audio metadata to identify artwork data, said processor operating said display screen to display only the identified artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device. Clayton teaches a communications interface system ([47]) receiving audio metadata data relating to audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]), the audio metadata including artwork data (Abstract: graphical representation; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra) and other data ([74]: “received information may include one or more of …”), said processor operating said display screen to display the identified artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]).
Clayton does not expressly teach said processor normalizing the audio metadata to identify artwork data. However, official notice is taken that normalization is a well-known technique in signal and data processing. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Clayton by the technique of normalization is present as Clayton teaches processing a data signal. The motivation is to put the data into a format that makes it easier to work with. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because normalization of data is a well-known technique in data signal processing. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and official notice would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, said processor normalizing the audio metadata to identify artwork data.
Clayton does not expressly teach said processor operating said display screen to display only the identified artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device, said processor operating said display screen so that the artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen. Warrick teaches that artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen ([249]). The suggestion to modify the combination of Sim and Clayton by the teaching of Warrick is present as Clayton teaches artwork data relating to audio source material and Warrick teaches artwork data relating to audio source material. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a different type of artwork metadata relating to audio source material than Warrick teaches, Clayton teaches that many types of related metadata are possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of artwork data relating to audio source material taught by Warrick could be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, and Warrick would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, said processor operating said display screen to display only the identified artwork data when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device, said processor operating said display screen so that the artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen.
Regarding claim 41, Sim teaches a method of displaying artwork data associated with audio source material (Abstract; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra), comprising:
providing a display device (Abstract; Fig. 4B), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4B);
a display screen mounted to said housing (Fig. 4B at 435);
a processor disposed within said housing and operatively connected to said display screen (Fig. 1 at 101);
a memory system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 105, 118);
a communications interface system disposed within said housing and operatively associated with said processor (Fig. 1 at 109, 122, 123);
Sim does not expressly teach operating the display device to receive at the display device, via said communications interface system, audio metadata data relating to audio source material, the audio metadata including artwork data and other data, the processor of the display device normalizing the audio metadata to identify artwork data, the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display only the artwork data on the display device when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device. Clayton teaches operating the display device to receive at the display device, via said communications interface system ([47]), audio metadata data relating to audio source material (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]), the audio metadata including artwork data (Abstract: graphical representation; see also note on Warrick and artwork data, infra) and other data ([74]: “received information may include one or more of …”), the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display the artwork data on the display device when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from said display device (Abstract; [21], [24], [100]).
Clayton does not expressly teach said processor normalizing the audio metadata to identify artwork data. However, official notice is taken that normalization is a well-known technique in signal and data processing. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Clayton by the technique of normalization is present as Clayton teaches processing a data signal. The motivation is to put the data into a format that makes it easier to work with. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because normalization of data is a well-known technique in data signal processing. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, Warrick, and official notice would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the processor of the display device normalizing the audio metadata to identify artwork data.
Clayton does not expressly teach the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display only the artwork data on the display device when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from the display device, the processor of the display device operating the display screen so that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen. Warrick teaches that artwork data occupy substantially the entirety of said display screen ([249]). The suggestion to modify the combination of Sim and Clayton by the teaching of Warrick is present as Clayton teaches artwork data relating to audio source material and Warrick teaches artwork data relating to audio source material. The motivation is aesthetic design choice. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Clayton teaches a different type of artwork metadata relating to audio source material than Warrick teaches, Clayton teaches that many types of related metadata are possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of artwork data relating to audio source material taught by Warrick could be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Sim, Clayton, and Warrick would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the processor of the display device operating the display screen to display only the artwork data on the display device when the audio source material is being played by a content player separate from the display device, the processor of the display device operating the display screen so that the artwork data are displayed across substantially the entirety of the display screen..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights