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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes “130”, “140” and “160” shown in Fig. 1, “602”, “604A” – “604D” shown in Fig. 6B, “702” shown in Figs. 7A and 7B, “802” shown in Fig. 8A, “802” and “806B” shown in Fig. 8B, “906” shown in Figs. 9A and 9B, “1006” shown in Fig. 10A, “1006” and “1010” shown in Fig. 10B, “1106” and “1110” shown in Fig. 11A, and “1106” and “1112” shown in Fig. 11B all should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the television" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the standby mode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim when it depends on claims 1, 2, 5 and 6.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the standby mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim when it depends on claims 10, 11, 14 and 15.
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.
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 1-5, 7/(1-5), 10-14 and 16/(10-14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberger (US 2009/0052859 A1) in view of Cui (CN 114296664 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Greenberger discloses the claimed subject matter, including a first display configured to display streaming video content at a first brightness level (para 0044 “…video rendering module 113 receives information from the tuner 111 and renders video for display to a user..."), a sensor configured to detect objects in a viewing area in proximity to the television (para 0016), one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions that cause the one or more processors to (para 0051 “… processors configured to execute instructions from one or more memory…”), receive detection inputs from the sensor (para 0016), perform a first presence evaluation based on the detection inputs, wherein the first presence evaluation determines that there is a presence or an absence of persons in the viewing area for an amount of time that satisfies a first threshold (para 0052 “… timer may be reset to zero every time user motion (or some other attribute) is detected within the viewing space. When the timer exceeds a certain threshold, the control 117 may determine that the user is absent from the viewing space…”, and based on the first presence evaluation, perform a first adjustment to one or more power settings of the first display and/or the second display (para 0084 "This may be based on the monitored user occupancy. For example, the controlling may involve deactivating or otherwise adjusting (e.g., reducing brightness) video rendering…"). Greenberger does not disclose a second display configured to display interactive content supplemental to the video content at a second brightness level, wherein the second display is physically separated from the first display, causing the first brightness level and the second brightness level to be different. Cui discloses a second display configured to display interactive content supplemental to the video content at a second brightness level, wherein the second display is physically separated from the first display (pg. 7 “…the first display 201 displays the multi-party interactive picture while displaying the traditional television program picture, and the multi-party interactive picture does not block the traditional television program picture...”, causing the first brightness level and the second brightness level to be different (pg. 14 “…increasing the secondary screen brightness value..."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Greenberger and Cui because a secondary screen could be used to provide information otherwise not available to a user in a single-display system, and it would be beneficial to the user experience to be able to independently set the brightness of each display (see pg. 7; pg. 3).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Greenberger discloses the first presence evaluation determines that there is an absence of persons in the viewing area for an amount of time that satisfies the first threshold (para 0052), and performing the first adjustment causes the first brightness level to be lower (para 0084). Cui further discloses the second brightness level (pg. 14).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Greenberger discloses a second presence evaluation determines that there is an absence of persons in the viewing area for an amount of time that satisfies a second threshold (para 0095 "The system could also transition from the secondary mode 420 to the power off mode 430 in response to a shutoff timer, which could reset in response to detected activity. For example, the system may transition to the power off mode 430 if there is no activity (e.g., user commands, etc.) for a certain time period, such a two hours."), and based on the second presence evaluation, the one or more processors perform a second adjustment to the one or more power settings causing the first display to enter a standby mode (para 0084 “…when user absence is detected, the video rendering module 113 may be switched into a standby or power-off mode."). Cui further discloses the second display to maintain a brightness level less than or equal to the second brightness level (pg. 14 “…reduce the brightness of the auxiliary screen…”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Greenberger discloses a third presence evaluation determines that there is an absence of persons in the viewing area for an amount of time (para 0052), and based on the third presence evaluation, the one or more processors perform a third adjustment to the one or more power settings causing the first display to remain in the standby mode (para 0084). Cui further discloses that satisfies a third threshold (pg. 12 that the brightness of the secondary screen is automatically reduced when the Home of the secondary screen is not interacted within a period, and the second display to enter the standby mode (pg. 12).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Greenberger discloses the first presence evaluation determines that there is a presence of one or more persons in the viewing area for an amount of time that satisfies the first threshold (para 0052); and performing the first adjustment, than the first brightness level (para 0084). Cui further discloses causes the second brightness level to be higher (pg. 14).
Regarding claims 7/(1-5) and 16/(10-14), Greenberger discloses the standby mode causes the first display and/or the second display to be powered off (para 0084 - also see statements for claims 1-5 and 10-14).
Claims 6, 7/(6), 15, and 16/(15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberger (US 2009/0052859 A1) in view of Cui (CN 114296664 A) as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-14 above, and further in view of Marcu (US 2014/0333684 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Greenberger discloses a second presence evaluation determines that there is a presence of one or more persons in the viewing area for an amount of time that satisfies a second threshold (para 0097 “… the process 5000-A may continually check whether a user overrides the system and remain in the primary mode 410 until the timer exceeds a threshold…"), and based on the second presence evaluation, the one or more processors perform a second adjustment to the one or more power settings (para 0084). Neither Greenberger nor Cui disclose causing the second brightness level to be substantially equal to the first brightness level. Marcu discloses causing the second brightness level to be substantially equal to the first brightness level (para 0037 “…adjusting maximum brightness can be performed to ensure same apparent maximum brightness for a data processing system when connected to different displays having different maximum brightness…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Greenberger, Cui, and Marcu because it may be advantageous to synchronize the brightness of two displays (see para 0037).
Regarding claims 7/(6) and 16(15), Greenberger discloses the standby mode causes the first display and/or the second display to be powered off (para 0084 - also see statements for claims 6 and 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karaoguz (US 8730391 B2) discloses adaptive control of lcd display characteristics based on video content.
Yoshida (US 20130057774 A1) shows a reproduction device, display device, television receiver, system, recognition method, program, and recording medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sherrie Hsia whose telephone number is (571)272-7347.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Customer Service Office whose telephone number is 571-272-1000.
/SHERRIE HSIA/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2422
SH
September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights