EXHIBIT 1018
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 1 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 1 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
`www.usptlo.gov
`
`
`
`2080-3507
`
`6246
`
`11/401,798
`
`04/10/2006
`
`Jong Wook Lee
`
`LEE
`EG
`‘ANG&
`LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY Loe
`660 §. FIGUEROA STREET
`DESIR, JEAN WICEL
`Suite 2300
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
`
`2422,
`
`NOTIVICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/15/2010
`
`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):
`uspto @Ihlaw.com
`ip.[hlaw @ gmail.com
`ip.lhlaw@live.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 2 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 2 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`LEE, JONG WOOK
`11/401,798
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`Jean W. Désir 2422
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`9)L] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10)L] The drawing(s)filed on
`is/are: a)L_] accepted or b)] 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)L] The oathor declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY(30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof 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) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`If NO periodfor reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this cornmunication.
`- 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).
`Anyreply 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)X] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/11/10 (RCE with Amendment).
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b)This actionis non-final.
`3)L Sincethis 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 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)X] Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the aboveclaim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`6)X] Claim(s) 1-78 is/are rejected.
`7)L] Claim(s)__ is/are objected to.
`8)L] Claim(s)___ are subjectto restriction and/orelection requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)L] Acknowledgmentis made ofa claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or(f).
`a)LIJAIl 6) Some*c)] Noneof:
`1.[] Certified copiesof the priority documents have been received.
`2.01 Certified copiesof the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.0] Copiesofthe certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceivedin 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) xX] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) E] Noticeof Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) [] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`4) CT Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __
`5) L] Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) Oo Other:
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 3 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 3 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/401,798
`Art Unit: 2422
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`1.
`
`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 —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section
`351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States
`only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2)
`of such treaty in the English language.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 6, 7, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Tanaka (US 7,054,544).
`
`Claim 6:
`
`Tanaka discloses:
`
`“a video signal processing unit (see Fig. 3 items 13, 14) processing a video
`
`signal output to a display device (see Fig. 3 item 15) of video processing equipment
`
`(see Fig. 3 item 2)”;
`
`“an audio signal processing unit (see Fig. 3 item 4) outputting an audio signal,
`
`the audio signal output to an audio device (see Fig. 3 items 11, 12) of the video
`
`processing equipment(see Fig. 3 item 2) and synchronized with the video signal (see
`
`col. 8 lines 26-30);
`
`“and an output selecting unit (see Fig. 3 items 4, 11) selecting the audio signal
`
`that is synchronized with the video signal and outputting the audio signal to an external
`
`device (see Fig. 3 item 10) that is not part of the video processing equipment”,
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 4 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 4 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/401,798
`Art Unit: 2422
`
`Page 3
`
`“wherein the video signal is output to the display device of the video processing
`
`equipment and the audio signal that is synchronized with the video signal is output to
`
`the external device simultaneously (see Fig. 3 items 2, 10, col. 1 lines 10-21, the
`
`ABSTRACTlines 1-6)".
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Tanakadiscloses:
`
`“a video signal processing unit (see Fig. 3 items 13, 14) processing a video
`
`signal output to a display device (see Fig. 3 item 15) of video processing equipment
`
`(see Fig. 3 item 2)”;
`
`“an audio signal processing unit (see Fig. 3 item 4) outputting the audio signal
`
`that is synchronized with the video signal (see col. 8 lines 26-30);
`
`“and an output selecting unit (see Fig. 3 items 4, 11) selecting an audio signal
`
`that is synchronized with the video signal and outputting the audio signal to an external
`
`device (see Fig. 3 item 10) that is not part of the video processing equipment”,
`
`“wherein the video signal is output to the display device of the video processing
`
`equipment and the audio signal that is synchronized with the video signal is output to
`
`the external device simultaneously (see Fig. 3 items 2, 10, col. 1 lines 10-21, the
`
`ABSTRACTlines 1-6)".
`
`Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6, Tanaka also teaches “selecting
`
`an output mode ofvideo processing equipment”as claimed (see Tanakaat col. 10 lines
`
`16-21).
`
`Claim 17 is disclosed, see Tanakaat Fig. 3 items 11, 12, 10, col. 8 lines 26-30.
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 5 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 5 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/401,798
`Art Unit: 2422
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim 18 is disclosed, see Tanaka at col. 4 lines 38-62.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis forall
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-5, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Tanaka (US 7,054,544) in view of Maehara et al (US 2005/0147129).
`
`Claim 8:
`
`Regarding claim 8, Tanaka disclosed all the claimed invention as pointed outin
`
`the rejection of claim 6; the difference between the claimed invention and the Tanaka’s
`
`disclosure is that Tanaka doesnotexplicitly teach “according to a kind of the external
`
`device” as claimed. However, the reference to Maehara showsthe structure of the
`
`claimed invention is a notoriously well known technique in the art, as evidence see
`
`Maehara at paragraphs [0009], [0047], and [0050], where Maehara teaches detecting
`
`and/or recognizing a kind of the external device. Hence, because ofthese teachings, an
`
`artisan would be motivated to combine the referencesto arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`and synchronization between audio and video signal would be advantageously
`
`obtained. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 6 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 6 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/401,798
`Art Unit: 2422
`
`Page 5
`
`Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
`
`Claim 11 is disclosed, see Maeharaat paragraphs [0009], [0047], [0050].
`
`Claims 12, 13 are disclosed, see Tanakaat Fig. 3 items 11, 12, 10, col. 8 lines 26-30,
`
`Maeharaat paragraphs [0009], [0047].
`
`Claim 14 is disclosed, see Tanakaat col. 1 lines 10-21, Maehara at paragraphs [0009],
`
`[0047].
`
`Claim 15 is disclosed, see Tanakaat col. 4 lines 38-62.
`
`Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8; Tanaka also teaches a switching
`
`unit as claimed (see Tanaka at col. 10 lines 16-21, Fig. 3 that includes the path formed
`
`by items 3, 4, and the path formed byitems 3, 13).
`
`Claim 2 is disclosed, see Maeharaat paragraphs [0009], [0047], [0050].
`
`Claims 3-5 are disclosed, see Maehara at paragraphs [0009], [0047], [0050], Tanakaat
`
`col. 10 lines 16-46.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's arguments have beenfully considered but they are mootin view of
`
`the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Jean W. Désir whose telephone number is (571) 272
`
`7344. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 - First Friday Off.
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 7 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 7 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/401,798
`Art Unit: 2422
`
`Page 6
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jefferey L Harold can be reached on (571) 272 7519. The fax phone
`
`numberfor the organization wherethis 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 more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`JWD
`10-27-10
`lJefferey F Harold/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
`
`Ex. 1018 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 8 of 8
`
`Ex. 1018 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 8 of 8
`
`