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
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 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (Publication number: US 2016/0124871).
Consider Claim 1, Kumar shows a method of controlling a display apparatus (see figures 3A and 3B), comprising:
(a) Before one or more processors of the display apparatus that displays an image start first arithmetic processing, displaying a recommended image for recommending use of an external arithmetic device different from the display apparatus as the image in order to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing (see figures 3A and 3B; and paragraphs 25-27); (A determination is made whether the display device needs additional processing capability to run the application (step 308). If the additional processing capability is needed, then the application sends the data to the external processor or processing device for processing (step 310). The application receives the processed data back from the external processor or processing device (step 312) and displays the processed data on the display device (step 314)).
Consider Claim 9, Kumar shows a display system (see figures 1 and 2), comprising:
(a) A display apparatus including one or more processors, and, before starting first arithmetic processing, displaying a recommended image for recommending use of an external arithmetic device different from the display apparatus in order to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing; and the external arithmetic device (see figures 3A and 3B; and paragraphs 25-27); (A determination is made whether the display device needs additional processing capability to run the application (step 308). If the additional processing capability is needed, then the application sends the data to the external processor or processing device for processing (step 310). The application receives the processed data back from the external processor or processing device (step 312) and displays the processed data on the display device (step 314)).
Consider Claim 2, Kumar shows that after the external arithmetic device is connected to the display apparatus, determining, by the one or more processors, whether the external arithmetic device satisfies a condition for executing at least a part of the first arithmetic processing; causing the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing when the one or more processors determine that the external arithmetic device satisfies the condition (see figures 3A and 3B; paragraphs 27-30); (After the processed data is displayed on the display device, a determination is made whether the application has more data to process (step 318). If the application has more data to process, then a determination is made whether the display device needs additional processing capability to run the application. The application can access the external processor or processing device on an as-needed basis, and does not have to send all of its data to the external processor or processing device for processing); and executing the first arithmetic processing only by the one or more processors when the one or more processors determine that the external arithmetic device does not satisfy the condition (see paragraph 25); (The display device detects whether an external processor (or processing device) and an external storage device are connected to the display device (step 302). An operating system (OS) may be loaded from the external storage device onto the display device. If an application to be run on the display device does not require a different OS for execution than the OS currently running on the display device).
Consider Claim 3, Kumar shows that after the external arithmetic device is connected to the display apparatus and before the one or more processors determine whether the external arithmetic device satisfies the condition, acquiring performance information indicating first arithmetic performance as arithmetic performance of the external arithmetic device, wherein the condition is that the first arithmetic performance indicated by the performance information is equal to or more than second arithmetic performance as arithmetic performance of the one or more processors (see figures 3A and 3B; and paragraphs 25-27); (A determination is made whether the display device needs additional processing capability to run the application (step 308). If the additional processing capability is needed, then the application sends the data to the external processor or processing device for processing (step 310). The application receives the processed data back from the external processor or processing device (step 312) and displays the processed data on the display device (step 314)).
Consider Claim 4, Kumar shows that after the external arithmetic device is connected to the display apparatus and before the one or more processors determine whether the external arithmetic device satisfies the condition, acquiring license information indicating whether the external arithmetic device has a license of application software for executing at least a part of the first arithmetic processing, wherein the condition is that the license information indicates that the external arithmetic device has the license (see paragraphs 28-30); (If the application does not have any more data to process (step 318), then a determination is made whether another application has been selected to run on the display device (step 320). If another application has been selected to run on the display device, then the selected application is loaded from the storage device onto the display device (step 306) as described above. If no other application has been selected to run on the display device (step 320), then the method terminates (step 322)).
Consider Claim 5, Kumar shows that after the external arithmetic device is connected to the display apparatus and before the one or more processors determine whether the external arithmetic device satisfies the condition, acquiring installation information indicating an installation status of application software for executing at least a part of the first arithmetic processing in the external arithmetic device, wherein the condition is that the installation information indicates that the application software is installed in the external arithmetic device (see paragraphs 28-30); (If the application does not have any more data to process (step 318), then a determination is made whether another application has been selected to run on the display device (step 320). If another application has been selected to run on the display device, then the selected application is loaded from the storage device onto the display device (step 306) as described above. If no other application has been selected to run on the display device (step 320), then the method terminates (step 322)).
Consider Claim 6, Kumar shows that after the external arithmetic device is connected to the display apparatus and before the one or more processors determine whether the external arithmetic device satisfies the condition, acquiring graphics processing unit (GPU) information indicating a provision status of a GPU in the external arithmetic device, wherein the condition is that the GPU information indicates that the GPU is provided in the external arithmetic device (see paragraphs 14 and 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (Publication number: US 2016/0124871) in view of Betts et al (Publication number: US 2009/0327962).
Consider Claim 7, Kumar does not specifically show that when the one or more processors determine that the external processing device satisfies the condition, after the determination and before the external processing device is caused to execute at least a part of the first processing, causing the display apparatus to display a selection image that receives a first answer for the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing or a second answer for the external arithmetic device not to execute the at least a part of the first arithmetic processing, wherein the causing the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing includes causing the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing when the one or more processors determine that the first answer is received via the selection image, and the executing of the first arithmetic processing only by the one or more processors includes executing the first arithmetic processing only by the one or more processors when the one or more processors determine that the second answer is received via the selection image.
In the same field of endeavor, Betts shows that when the one or more processors determine that the external processing device satisfies the condition, after the determination and before the external processing device is caused to execute at least a part of the first processing, causing the display apparatus to display a selection image that receives a first answer for the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing or a second answer for the external arithmetic device not to execute the at least a part of the first arithmetic processing, wherein the causing the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing includes causing the external arithmetic device to execute at least a part of the first arithmetic processing when the one or more processors determine that the first answer is received via the selection image, and the executing of the first arithmetic processing only by the one or more processors includes executing the first arithmetic processing only by the one or more processors when the one or more processors determine that the second answer is received via the selection image (see figure 3; and paragraphs 44-46); (he mode-control options dialog box 92 provides various user options for controlling how the process or processes associated with the icon 82 uses local or remote resources. For example, the mode-control options dialog box 92 includes, for illustrative purposes, a local-processing radio button 94, a remote-processing radio button 96, and a process slider 98, with a first movable tab 100. The dialog box 92 further includes a local-storage radio button 102, a remote storage radio button 104, and a storage slider 106 with a second movable tab 108. The mode-control options dialog box 92 further includes a bandwidth slider 128 with a third movable tab 110. A process/computation path 112 illustrates one or more paths where the process associated with the icon 82 is currently hosted. The process associated with the icon 82 may be hosted locally, remotely, or both remotely and locally. A processing-profile button 114 enables a user to invoke a second dialog box 116, which provides user options for setting up processing profiles, such as a first profile 118 and a second profile 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Betts into the teaching of Kumar in order to have greater processing power (see Betts; paragraphs 4-6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (Publication number: US 2016/0124871) in view of Carter et al (Publication number: US 2015/0193209).
Consider Claim 8, Kumar does not specifically show that after the one or more processors determine that the external processing device satisfies the condition and before the external processing device is caused to execute at least a part of the first processing, transmitting a script language program corresponding to a compile language program describing a procedure of the first arithmetic processing stored in a storage device to the external arithmetic device.
In related art, carter et al shows that after the one or more processors determine that the external processing device satisfies the condition and before the external processing device is caused to execute at least a part of the first processing, transmitting a script language program corresponding to a compile language program describing a procedure of the first arithmetic processing stored in a storage device to the external arithmetic device (see paragraphs 24-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Carter et al into the teaching of Kumar in order to update or change that code (see Carter et al; paragraphs 2-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A FARAGALLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/MICHAEL A FARAGALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 09/19/2026
Prosecution Insights