`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTIVIENT OF COMNIERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`11/237,357
`
`09/27/2005
`
`Lai King Tee
`
`2004.06.023.WSO
`
`5714
`
`DOCKET CLERK —
`04’26’20” —EXAMINER
`7590
`23990
`P.O. DRAWER 800889
`BATISTA, MARCOS
`
`DALLAS, TX 75380
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2617
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/26/201 1
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date” to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patents @ munckcarter.com
`munckcarter @ gmail.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`.
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`11/237,357
`Examiner
`
`TEE ET AL.
`Art Unit
`
`MARCOS BATISTA
`
`2617
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`This application is abandoned in view of:
`
`1. E Applicant’s failure to timely file a proper reply to the Office letter mailed on 16 September 2010.
`
`
`(a) [I A reply was received on
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`), which is after the expiration of the
`
`
`period for reply (including a total extension of time of
`month(s)) which expired on
`
`
`, but it does not constitute a proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (a) to the final rejection.
`
`(b) [I A proposed reply was received on
`
`(A proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection consists only of: (1) a timely filed amendment which places the
`application in condition for allowance; (2) a timely filed Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee); or (3) a timely filed Request for
`
`Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114).
`
`but it does not constitute a proper reply, or a bona fide attempt at a proper reply, to the non-
`(c) I:I A reply was received on
`final rejection. See 37 CFR 1.85(a) and 1.111. (See explanation in box 7 below).
`
`
`
`(d) IXI No reply has been received.
`
`2. I:I Applicant’s failure to timely pay the required issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, within the statutory period of three months
`from the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85).
`
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`(a) I:I The issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, was received on
`
`), which is after the expiration of the statutory period for payment of the issue fee (and publication fee) set in the Notice of
`
`
`
`Allowance (PTOL-85).
`
`(b) CI The submitted fee of $
`
`
`
`is insufficient. A balance of $
`
`
`
`is due.
`
`The issue fee required by 37 CFR 1.18 is $
`
`
`
`. The publication fee, if required by 37 CFR 1.18(d), is $
`
`.
`
`(0) El The issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, has not been received.
`
`3.|:I Applicant’s failure to timely file corrected drawings as required by, and within the three-month period set in, the Notice of
`Allowability (PTO-37).
`
`(a) El Proposed corrected drawings were received on
`after the expiration of the period for reply.
`
`(b) El No corrected drawings have been received.
`
`_
`
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`
`_)
`
`, which is
`
`4. I] The letter of express abandonment which is signed by the attorney or agent of record, the assignee of the entire interest, or all of
`the applicants.
`
`5. El The letter of express abandonment which is signed by an attorney or agent (acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR
`1.34(a)) upon the filing of a continuing application.
`
`6. |:| The decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference rendered on
`of the decision has expired and there are no allowed claims.
`
`and because the period for seeking court review
`
`7. E The reason(s) below:
`
`Han Le has contacted the firm handling the above noted applications and verified that no response had been
`submitted.
`
`/Flafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
`
`Petitions to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(a) or (b), or requests to withdraw the holding of abandonment under 37 CFR 1.181, should be promptly filed to
`minimize an neoative effects on oatent term.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-1432 (Rev. 04-01)
`
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`Part of Paper No. 20110413
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTIVIENT OF COMNIERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`11/237,357
`
`09/27/2005
`
`Lai King Tee
`
`2004.06.023.WSO
`
`5714
`
`DOCKET CLERK —
`””6”” —EXAMINER
`7590
`23990
`P.O. DRAWER 800889
`BATISTA, MARCOS
`
`DALLAS, TX 75380
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2617
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/16/2010
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date” to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patents @ munckcarter.com
`munckcarter @ gmail.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant(s)
`
`MARCOS BATISTA
`2617 -
`
`Application No.
`
`11/237,357
`
`Examiner
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`TEE ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE Q MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 24 March 2010.
`
`2a)I:I This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IZI This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 0.6. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)IXI Claim(s) 1-25 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`
`
`isiare withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)I:I Claim(s)
`
`
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`6)IZI Claim(s) i5 isiare rejected.
`
`7)I:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s)_ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`10)I:I The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`
`
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) |:| Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OS)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`
`
`
`4) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`-
`5) I:I Notlce 0f Informal Patent Appllcatlon
`6) D Other:
`
`
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20100831
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 03/24/2010. Claims
`
`1-25 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`2.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
`
`3/24/2010 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 18 and 21 have been considered
`
`but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`5.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`6.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors.
`
`In considering patentability of
`
`the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of
`
`the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein
`
`were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation
`
`under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was
`
`not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g)
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-3, 9-11, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20060077310 A1), hereafter “Wang,” in view of
`
`Acharya et al. (US 20020080091 A1), hereafter “Acharya,” further in view of Cho et al.
`
`(US 20020197993 A1), hereafter “Cho.”
`
`Consider claim 1, Wang discloses a mobile terminal (fig. 1, #108) comprising: a
`
`local display capable of displaying multimedia data (see fig. 1, pars. 0006 lines 6-10,
`
`0031 lines 5-7, 0032 lines 6-8); a controller capable of transmitting the multimedia data
`
`to the local display (see pars. 0031 lines 5-7, 0032 lines 6-8, 0035 lines 1-4 — mobile
`
`device is able to display multimedia file, therefore it must have a controller to carry out
`
`this task); and a first transceiver capable of communicating with a remote display device
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`(see fig. 2 #206, fig. 5, pars. 0043 lines 3-5, 0053 lines 1-9), wherein the controller is
`
`configured to of compare display parameter information associated with the remote
`
`display device to display parameter information associated with the local display and, in
`
`response to the comparison (see fig. 3, pars. 0042 lines 1-9, 0053 lines 1-4), transmit
`
`the multimedia data to the remote display device via the first transceiver (see pars.
`
`0043 lines 1-7).
`
`Wang, however, does not particular refer to wherein the controller is configured
`
`to query the remote display device for display parameter information associated with the
`
`remote display device.
`
`Acharya, in analogous art, teaches wherein the controller is configured to query
`
`the remote display device for display parameter information associated with the remote
`
`display device (see fig. 1, pars. 0060 lines 1-5, 0109 lines 1-5 where Acharya teaches
`
`querying an external display from a module attached to a mobile device in order to
`
`acquire display parameters).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the invention of Wang and have it include the teachings
`
`of Acharya. The motivation would have been in order to identify compatible settings
`
`between two different displays (see fig. 1, pars. 0060 lines 1-5, 0109 lines 1-5).
`
`Wang as modified by Acharya, however, does not particular refer to wherein the
`
`parameter information comprises the display type and display size.
`
`Cho, in analogous art, teaches wherein the parameter information comprises the
`
`display type and display size (see fig. 1, pars. 0075 lines 1-8, 0126 lines 1-14).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the invention of Wang as modified by Acharya and have it
`
`include wherein the parameter information comprises the display type and display size,
`
`as taught by Cho. The motivation would have been in order to transmit the data to a
`
`particular screen based on comparing the profile information (see pars. 0075 lines 1-8,
`
`0126 lines 1-14).
`
`Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1, Wang also discloses wherein the controller
`
`retrieves the multimedia data from a multimedia file stored in a memory associated with
`
`the controller (see pars. 0041 lines 1-10, 0053 lines 1-4).
`
`Consider claim 9 in view of claim 1, Wang also discloses further comprising a
`
`second transceiver capable of communicating with a wireless network (see fig. 1, par.
`
`0027 lines 1-12).
`
`Consider claims 3 and 11 in view of in claim 1 and 9 above, Wang also
`
`discloses wherein the controller compares the display parameter information associated
`
`with the remote display device to the display parameter information associated with the
`
`local display in order to determine which of the remote display device and the local
`
`display is better suited to a multimedia application executed by the mobile terminal (see
`
`fig. 3, pars. 0026 lines 10-17, 0042 lines 1-9, 0053 lines 1-4).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Consider claim 10 in view of claim 9, Wang also discloses wherein the controller
`
`retrieves the multimedia data from a server via the second transceiver and the wireless
`
`network (see fig. 1, par. 0027 lines 1-12).
`
`Consider claim 17 in view of claim 9 above, Wang also discloses wherein the
`
`second transceiver comprises one of an HSDPA/HSUPA transceiver (see fig. 1, par.
`
`0026 lines 1-6).
`
`Consider claim 18, this claim discusses the same subject matter as claim 1.
`
`Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. In
`
`addition, the limitation of “detecting the presence of a remote display device” is further
`
`disclosed by Wang (see par. 0032 lines 15-17 — Bluetooth technologies is used where
`
`the presence of each device is detected by each device in the connection); and
`
`establishing a wireless communication link with the remote display device (see par.
`
`0032 lines 1-17).
`
`Consider claim 20 in view of claim 18, Wang also discloses further comprising
`
`the step of retrieving the multimedia data from one of: a wireless network with which the
`
`mobile terminal is capable of communicating (see fig. 1, par. 0027 lines 1-12).
`
`8.
`
`Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20060077310 A1), hereafter “Wang,” in view
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`of Acharya et al. (US 20020080091 A1), hereafter “Acharya,” further in view of Cho et
`
`al. (US 20020197993 A1), hereafter “Cho,” and further in view of Katz et al. (US
`
`20060099023 A1), hereafter “Katz.”
`
`Consider claims 4 and 5, Wang as modified by Acharya and Cho discloses the
`
`invention as in claim 3 above. Wang as modified by Acharya and Cho, however, does
`
`not particular refer to wherein the controller is capable of communicating with a remote
`
`user input device via the first transceiver and wherein the remote user input device
`
`comprises a wireless keyboard.
`
`Katz, in analogous art, teaches a controller that is capable of communicating with
`
`a wireless keyboard (see fig. 1, par. 0113 lines 1-5).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the invention of Wang as modified by Acharya and Cho
`
`and have it include wherein the controller is capable of communicating with a remote
`
`user input device via the first transceiver and wherein the remote user input device
`
`comprises a wireless keyboard, as taught by Katz. The motivation would have been in
`
`order to a portable and more user friendly input device than those integrated in most
`
`portable devices such as PDA and the like (see pars. 0004, 0005 and 0006).
`
`Consider claim 7 in view of claim 4, Wang also discloses wherein the first
`
`transceiver comprises a personal area network transceiver (see par. 0037 lines 15-17).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Consider claim 8 in view of claim 4, Wang also discloses wherein the personal
`
`area network transceiver comprises one of: a Bluetooth transceiver (see par. 0037 lines
`
`15-17).
`
`Consider claims 12 and 13, these claims discuss the same subject matter as
`
`claims 4 and 5 respectively. Therefore, they have been analyzed and rejected based
`
`upon the rejection to claims 4 and 5.
`
`Consider claims 15 and 16, these claims discuss the same subject matter as
`
`claims 7 and 8 respectively. Therefore, they have been analyzed and rejected based
`
`upon the rejection to claims 7 and 8.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Wang et al. (US 20060077310 A1 ), hereafter “Wang,” in view of Acharya et al. (US
`
`20020080091 A1 ), hereafter “Acharya,” further in view of Cho et al. (US 20020197993
`
`A1 ), hereafter “Cho,” further in view of Katz et al. (US 20060099023 A1), hereafter
`
`“Katz,” and further in view of Villamil et al. (US 20050136988 A1 ), hereafter " Villamil."
`
`Consider claim 6, Wang as modified by Acharya, Cho and Katz discloses the
`
`invention of claim 6. Wang, however, does not particular refer to wherein the controller
`
`is capable of prompting an operator of the mobile terminal for permission to transmit the
`
`multimedia data to the remote display device via the first transceiver.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Villamil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a mobile device prompting a user
`
`before sending a message to another user (see par. 0008 lines 4-9).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the invention of Wang as modified by Acharya, Cho and
`
`Katz and have it include a mobile device prompting a user before sending a message to
`
`another user, as taught by Villamil. The motivation would have been in order to make
`
`sure the user is aware of a particular event (see par. 0008 lines 4-9).
`
`Consider claim 14, this claim discusses the same subject matter as claim 6.
`
`Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 6.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang et
`
`al. (US 20060077310 A1), hereafter “Wang,” in view of Acharya et al. (US 20020080091
`
`A1), hereafter “Acharya,” further in view of Cho et al. (US 20020197993 A1), hereafter
`
`“Cho,” and further in view of Villamil et al. (US 20050136988 A1), hereafter " Villamil."
`
`Consider claim 19, Wang as modified by Acharya and Cho discloses the
`
`invention of claim 18. Wang, however, does not particular refer to further comprising the
`
`step of prompting an operator of the mobile terminal for permission to transmit the
`
`multimedia data to the remote display device.
`
`Villamil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising the step of
`
`prompting an operator of the mobile terminal for permission to transmit the multimedia
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`data to the remote display device (see par. 0008 lines 4-9).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the invention of Wang as modified by Acharya and Cho
`
`and have it include a mobile device prompting a user before sending a message to
`
`another user, as taught by Villamil. The motivation would have been in order to make
`
`sure the user is aware of a particular event (see par. 0008 lines 4-9).
`
`11.
`
`Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Wang et al. (US 20060077310 A1), hereafter “Wang,” in view of Acharya et al. (US
`
`20020080091 A1), hereafter “Acharya.”
`
`Consider claim 21, Wang discloses a mobile terminal (fig. 1 #108) comprising a
`
`local display configured to display multimedia data (see fig. 1, pars. 0006 lines 6-10,
`
`0031 lines 5-7, 0032 lines 6-8), a first wireless interface configured to receive the
`
`multimedia data (see fig. 1, par. 0027 lines 1-12) and a second wireless interface
`
`configured to transmit the received multimedia data to the remote display (see fig. 1,
`
`pars. 0043 lines 1-7).
`
`Wang, however, does not particular refer to a controller configured to query a
`
`remote display device for display parameter information associated with the remote
`
`display.
`
`Acharya, in analogous art, teaches a controller configured to query a remote
`
`display device for display parameter information associated with the remote display
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`(see fig. 1, pars. 0060 lines 1-5, 0109 lines 1-5 where Acharya teaches querying an
`
`external display from a module attached to a mobile device in order to acquire display
`
`parameters).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the invention of Wang and have it include the teachings
`
`of Acharya. The motivation would have been in order to identify compatible settings
`
`between two different displays (see fig. 1, pars. 0060 lines 1-5, 0109 lines 1-5).
`
`Consider claim 22 in view of claim 21, Wang also discusses wherein the
`
`controller is further configured to determine whether a quality of the remote display is
`
`superior to the quality of the local display (see fig. 3, pars. 0026 lines 10-17, 0042 lines
`
`1-9, 0053 lines 1-4).
`
`Consider claim 23 in view of claim 22, Wang also discusses wherein the mobile
`
`terminal transmit the received multimedia to the remote display via the second wireless
`
`interface ill response to a determination that the quality of the remote display is superior
`
`to the quality of the local display (see fig. 3, pars. 0026 lines 10-17, 0042 lines 1-9, 0053
`
`lines 1-4).
`
`Consider claim 24 in view of claim 23, Wang also discloses wherein the second
`
`wireless interface comprises one of: a Bluetooth interface (see par. 0037 lines 15-17).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Consider claim 25 in view of claim 24, Wang also discloses wherein the first
`
`wireless interface comprises one of: an HSDPA/HSUPA (see fig. 1, par. 0026 lines 1-6).
`
`Conclusion
`
`12.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-
`
`5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00am to
`
`5:00pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)
`
`273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
`
`applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
`
`information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
`
`
`
`have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
`
`Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
`
`Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
`
`proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone
`
`number is (571) 272-2600.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`/Marcos Bat/sta/
`
`Examiner
`
`/Rafae| Perez-Gutierrez/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
`
`08/31/2010
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTIVIENT OF COMNIERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`11/237,357
`
`09/27/2005
`
`Lai King Tee
`
`2004.06.023.WSO
`
`5714
`
`DOCKET/em —
`
`EXAMINER
`
`P.O. DRAWER 800889
`
`DALLAS, TX 75380
`
`BATISTA, MARCOS
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2617
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/26/2010
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date” to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patents @ munckcarter.com
`munckcarter @ gmail.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant(s)
`
`MARCOS BATISTA
`2617 -
`
`Application No.
`
`11/237,357
`
`Examiner
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`TEE ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE Q MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 17 November 2009.
`
`2a)IZI This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:I This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 0.6. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)IXI Claim(s) 1-25 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`
`
`isiare withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)I:I Claim(s)
`
`
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`6)IZI Claim(s) i5 isiare rejected.
`
`7)I:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s)_ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`10)I:I The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`
`
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) |:| Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OS)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`
`
`
`4) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`-
`5) I:I Notlce 0f Informal Patent Appllcatlon
`6) D Other:
`
`
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20100114
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 11/17/2009. Claims
`
`1-25 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
`art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall
`set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to
`
`comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter
`
`which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to
`
`one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed,
`
`had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`The amendment to claims 1, 18 and 21 to include "controlling the remote display
`
`device,” wherein presumably, the controlling is done by the controller of the mobile
`
`terminal, contain new subject matter. There is no mention in either previous claims or
`
`the specification regarding the controller of the mobile terminal controlling the remote
`
`display device. Applicant cited paragraph 26 of the original specification as prove of
`
`support for the new amendment, however, it is not clear how the applicant is interpreting
`
`that “the controller of the mobile terminal is controlling the remote display device.” This
`
`paragraph only clarifies that the controller of the mobile terminal controls the overall
`
`operation of the mobile terminal itself.
`
`Claims 2-17, 19, 20, and 22-25 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/237,357
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`claims 1, 18, and 21.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2009 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`After carefully revising the office action pertinent to the present response and
`
`remarks, the following main point(s) have been identified:
`
`1) The Applicant states that the original disclosure includes sufficient support for
`
`"controlling the remote display device," for which a 112 first rejection based on new
`
`subject matter was filed (refer to page 10 lines 6-25 of the Applicant’s remarks, added
`
`below for clarity).
`
`“Specifically, the element of "controlling the remote display device" was rejected. This element is
`supported throughout the specification, including [036] which is reproduced