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 .
According to paper filed April 20th 2023, claims 1-22 are pending for examination with a September 10th 2020 priority date under 35 USC §371 & 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (WO 2021/189400), hereinafter Tang.
Claim 1
“A multi-window projection method, applied to a scenario in which a first device performs projection onto a second device, wherein the multi-window projection method comprises: displaying, by the second device, a first interface synchronously with the first device, wherein the first interface comprises a plurality of application interfaces; obtaining, by the second device, first information when displaying the first interface” Tang p.4 2nd paragraph teaches a first controller of a first hardware system and a second controller of a second hardware system, the audio and picture synchronization processing of the display devices of the first display and the second display can also be non-dual-system display devices;
“adaptively adjusting, by the second device based on the first information, one or more of the following: frame rates corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces, sizes of application display regions corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces, a display resolution of the second device, or a video resolution corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces” Tang p.38 last paragraph teaches the second controller receives the video data stream sent by a peer device, and performs frame rate conversion, Resolution conversion, image synthesis on the video data stream.
Claim 2
“wherein the first information comprises window statuses corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces, wherein the window statuses comprise a focus window, a non-minimized and non-focus window, and a minimized window, and wherein the second device further adaptively adjusts the frame rates corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces using the first information” Tang p.33 3rd paragraph & Figure 11 teaches a selector to select video chat applications, the controller can respond to the user instruction to start the video chat application, and display in the first view, the application interface of the video chat application also shown in Figure 12.
Claim 4
“wherein the first information comprises application categories corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces, wherein the application categories comprise one or more of a game category, a video category, an instant messaging category, an office category, a social category, a life category, a shopping category, or a function category” Tang p.38 last paragraph teaches the second controller receives the video data stream sent by a peer device,
“wherein the second device further adaptively adjusts the frame rates corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces using the first information” Tang p.38 last paragraph teaches the second controller receives the video data stream sent by a peer device, and performs frame rate conversion, Resolution conversion, image synthesis on the video data stream.
Claim 8
“wherein the first information comprises a quantity of the plurality of application interfaces, and wherein the second device further adaptively adjusts one or more of the following: the sizes of the application display regions corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces, the display resolution of the second device, or the video resolution corresponding to the plurality of application interfaces” Tang p.38 last paragraph teaches the second controller receives the video data stream sent by a peer device, and performs frame rate conversion, Resolution conversion, image synthesis on the video data stream.
Claims 12 & 15 & 16
Claims 12 and 15-16 are rejected for the similar rationale given for claims 1, 1, and 8 respectively.
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.
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2021/189400), hereinafter Tang, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 10,708,660), hereinafter Singh.
Claim 6
“wherein, obtaining the first information when displaying the first interface comprises obtaining, by the second device when determining that processing load of the second device is higher than a preset threshold, the first information when displaying the first interface synchronously with the first device” Singh claim 11 recites summarized view of a media asset in a multi-window user interface, and in response to determining that the respective importance level is higher than an importance threshold, add the respective content portion to a subset of the plurality of content portions.
Tang and Singh disclose analogous art. However, Tang does not spell out the “threshold” as recited above. Said feature is taught in Singh. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Singh into Tang to enhance its multi-window displaying determination functions.
Claim 7
“wherein the processing load of the second device is greater than the preset threshold when a decoding delay of a graphics processing unit (GPU) of the second device is greater than a delay threshold, a load rate of the GPU is greater than a load threshold, or a quantity of the plurality of application interfaces is greater than a quantity threshold” Tang p.4 last paragraph teaches the use of hard decoding resources, the GPU, to decode the network video; and Singh teaches various preset thresholds, such as importance threshold and similarity threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 9-11, 17-19, and 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUAY HO whose telephone number is (571)272-6088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/Ruay Ho/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights