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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 02/12/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/13/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 20200007914 A1, hereinafter “Peng”) in view of Isaac (US 20240232039 A1, hereinafter “Isaac”), Li et al. (WO 2021052070 A1, hereinafter “Li”), and Liu et al. (US 2016/0179150 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Peng teaches A method comprising: (page 9, claim 1, “A method for controlling a frame rate of an electronic device”)
receiving a plurality of content item streams, wherein each content item stream is associated with a user experience metric, wherein the user experience metric represents at least one of a power consumption metric, a network stability metric, a network congestion metric, or an operating temperature metric; (page 2, para. [0033], “At block 101, a frame rate of rendering and a set priority of each of target objects currently running on the electronic device are obtained, where each of the target objects includes an application or a window”; page 3, para. [0035], “one or more windows are currently running, where one or more applications may be displayed in each window. In the set white list, the frame rate of rendering of each target object can be set according to a running scenario”). Note that: (1) The running windows displaying applications and rendering target objects can be regarded as a plurality of content item streams; and (2) The frame rate of the content stream can be regarded as a user experience metric according to a running scenario.
determining, based on the stabilized FPS metric, a rendering FPS metric for the plurality of content item streams; and (page 2, para. [0034], “The frame rate of rendering of each of the target objects may be obtained as follows. In a current running scenario, a real-time frame rate of rendering of each of the target objects is obtained, or in the current running scenario, the frame rate of rendering of each of the target objects is obtained from a set white list, where the set white list contains a correspondence between running scenarios and frame rates of rendering of the target objects.”; page 3, para. [0038], “At block 102, a synthesizing frame rate of the electronic device is determined according to the frame rate of rendering and the set priority of each of the target objects”; page 4, [0054], “the frame rate of rendering of the target object with the highest priority is determined as the synthesizing frame rate is that a user usually pays attention to the target object with the highest priority, and if the frame rate of rendering of the target object with the highest priority is set to be the synthesizing frame rate, operations for synthesizing rendering images of other lower priority applications can be simplified while ensuring that images rendered by the application with the highest priority can be synthesized, and so power consumption of the CPU or the GPU of the electronic device for performing synthesizing operations can be reduced”). Note that: (1) a synthesizing frame rate can be regarded as a rendering frames per second and is determined based on the frame rates for the plurality of content item streams and the set priorities of target objects; and (2) power consumption can be reduced or affected by a synthesizing frame rate. Therefore, a synthesizing frame rate can be determined based on power consumption metric.
generating a rendered composition of the plurality of content item streams based on the rendering FPS metric. (page 4, para. [0055], “At block 103, according to the synthesizing frame rate, respective images rendered by the target objects are synthesized to generate a to-be-displayed image”).
However, Peng fails to disclose, but in the same art of computer graphics, Isaac discloses, wherein the user experience metric represents at least one of a power consumption metric, a network stability metric, a network congestion metric, or an operating temperature metric (Isaac, page 30, claim 13, “The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more user experience metric values comprise one or more of a battery power consumption metric, a graphics processing error metric, or a system temperature metric”). Note that: (1) according to the specification of this application, the user experiences include “a rendering frames per second (FPS) metric” ([004] of the specification), “the power consumption of the client device 102A-N”, and “operating temperature of the client device 102A-N” ([0048] of the specification). A rendering frames per second (FPS) metric as a user experience metric has been disclosed by Peng above; and (2) Isaac discloses that the one or more user experience metric values comprise power consumption metric and temperature metric of a device. It is obvious that at least one of power consumption metric and temperature metric can substitute a rendering frames per second (FPS) metric as user experience metric(s).
Peng and Isaac are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply user experience metrics, as taught by Isaac into Peng. The motivation would have been “At least a portion of operations of the application to be executed using the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit based on the usage data and in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics or one or more user experience metrics” (Isaac, abstract). The suggestion for doing so would allow to improve the user experiences of the app display and perform the optimal operations based on user experience metric(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Peng and Isaac.
However, Peng in view of Isaac fails to disclose, but in the same art of computer graphics, Li discloses
determining a stabilized frames per second (FPS) metric for each content item stream, wherein the stabilized FPS metric represents a FPS measured over a period of time and stabilized according to a stabilization value …
… the stabilized FPS … (Li, page 2 / line 35 – page 3 / line 7, “stabilizing the image rendering and rendering performed to the current target frame rate; The frame length of N continuous images is determined at the receiving time of the rendering result of an application, and the N continuous images are the images rendered and rendered by the first application; the measured frame rate is determined according to the frame length of the N continuous images; According to the measured frame rate and the current target frame rate, determine a new target frame rate, so as to stabilize the frame of the image rendering and rendering performed by the first application according to the new target frame rate”): Note that: (1) the frame rates are measured according to the frame length of the N continuous images or in a time period of N * frame length; (2) a new target frame rate is determined and stabilizes the frame of the image rendering and rendering performed by the first application according to the measured frame rate and the current target frame rate; (3) the new target frame rate can be regarded as a stabilized frames per second (FPS) metric for the first application with it corresponding content item stream; and (4) the determination of the stabilized here is exemplified by the first application’s stream, and the same method can be applied to each content item stream to determine the corresponding stabilized FPS.
Peng in view of Isaac, and Li, are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply determining a stabilized FPS metric measured over a period time and stabilizing the frames of the image rendering and rendering performed by applications, as taught by Li into Peng in view of Isaac. The motivation would have been “And the recognized frame rate can be used as the target frame rate used by the operating system for frame stabilization, so as to improve the user experience of the application and avoid or reduce unnecessary power consumption” (Li, page 8, lines 23-26). The suggestion for doing so would allow to improve the user experiences of the app display and avoid or reduce unnecessary power consumption as one of user experience metrics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Peng, Isaac, and Li.
However, the combination of Peng, Isaac, and Li fails to disclose, but in the same art of computer graphics, Liu discloses a stabilization value derived from the user experience metric; (Liu, FIG. 18: “Temperature” may be above “Threshold” using 30fps; FIG 19: “Temperature” is not above “Threshold” using 25fps; page 3, para. [0061], “In the embodiments of FIG. 18 and FIG. 19, the frame rate for the display panel to display is adjusted based on the frame resolution (i.e. the device parameter). In FIG. 18, the image/video processing module is set to high resolution and the frame rate is not adjusted (30 fps for all periods P1, P2, P3) such that the temperature may be over a temperature threshold value. In FIG. 19, for such high resolution setting, the frame rates for all periods P1, P2, P3 (not limited to all periods, however) are adjusted to 25 fps, thereby the temperature is lower than the temperature threshold value correspondingly.”). Note that: (1) the reduced fps of 25fps can be regarded as the stabilization value with regards the temperature and the temperature threshold; and (2) a reduced FPS or a stabilized value (i.e., 25fps) can be derived or adjusted from the temperature sometimes above the threshold with an FPS value of 30fps and a temperature threshold corresponding to the user experience metric (temperature).
The combination of Peng, Isaac, and Li, and Liu, are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply determining a stabilized FPS metric measured over a period time and stabilizing the frames of the image rendering and rendering performed by applications, as taught by Li into Peng in view of Isaac. The motivation would have been “the frame rates for all periods P1, P2, P3 (not limited to all periods, however) are adjusted to 25 fps, thereby the temperature is lower than the temperature threshold value correspondingly.” (Li, page 8, lines 23-26). The suggestion for doing so would allow to improve or meet the user experiences of the app display and avoid to exceed a threshold value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a target refresh rate based on the rendering FPS metric. (Peng, page 4, para. [0058], “refresh rate of the display screen of the electronic device is set to be the same as the synthesizing frame rate”). Note that the synthesizing frame rate is equivalent to the rendering FPS metric and a target the refresh rate of the display screen can be set to be the same as the synthesizing frame rate.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the rendering FPS metric for the plurality of content item streams comprises:
identifying a display setting associated with a user interface displaying the plurality of content item streams; (Peng, page 3, para. [0037], “The method further includes operations of setting a priority of each of the target objects. A priority of an application can be set according to properties of the application, or a priority of a window can be set according to properties of the window”). Note that the operations of setting a priority of each of the target objects can be regarded as identifying the display setting while each of targeting objects is displayed in its application window via corresponding user interface.
determining, based on the display setting, a weighting factor for each content item stream; and (Peng, page 4, para. [0062], “a weight of each of the target objects is determined according to the set priority of each of the target objects”; page 5, para. [0063], “respective weights of the three applications can be determined to be 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2, respectively”). Note that the weight is based on the set priority.
combining the stabilized FPS metrics of the plurality of content item streams according to the weighting factors. (Peng, page 4, para. [0051], “the frame rate of rendering and the set priority of each of the target objects currently running are fully considered. For example, a sum of products is determined as the synthesizing frame rate of the electronic device, where each of the products is obtained by multiplying the frame rate of rendering of each of the target objects by a weight of each of the target objects”; page 5, para. [0065], “the sum X of (0.5*Pl+0.3*P2+0.2*P3) can be determined as the synthesizing frame rate”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Peng, Isaac, and Li discloses The method of claim 6, wherein the rendering FPS is one of: a highest of the stabilized FPS metrics of the plurality of content item streams, a lowest of the stabilized FPS metrics of the plurality of content item streams, a median of the stabilized FPS metrics of the plurality of content item streams, or an average of the stabilized FPS metrics of the plurality of content item streams. (Peng, page 4, para. [0051], “a sum of products is determined as the synthesizing frame rate of the electronic device, where each of the products is obtained by multiplying the frame rate of rendering of each of the target objects by a weight of each of the target objects”; page 5, para. [0065], “the sum X of (0.5*Pl+0.3*P2+0.2*P3) can be determined as the synthesizing frame rate”). Note that a sum of products in the citation here is equivalent to a weighted average value of the stabilized FPS metrics of the plurality of content item streams.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Peng, Isaac, and Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the rendered composition of the plurality of content item streams comprises:
synchronizing content frames from each content item stream based on the rendering FPS metric; and
combining the synchronized content frames. (Peng, page 1, para. [0011], “FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating a vertical synchronization (Vsync) display refresh mechanism according to an implementation of the present disclosure”; page 3, para. [0044], “The surface flinger starts to perform an image synthesizing operation, and synthesizes the multiple images rendered by respective applications to generate (or compose) a to-be-displayed image”).
Claim 10 reciting “A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising:”, is corresponding to the method of claim 1. Therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale for claim 1.
In addition, the combination of Peng, Isaac, and Li discloses A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising: (Peng, page 9, Claim 8, “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a computer readable storage, coupled to the at least one processor and storing at least one computer executable instruction thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to”). Note that the electronic system cited here is a system.
Claims 13, 15, and 17-18 are corresponding to the method of claims 4, 6, and 8-9, respectively. Therefore, claims 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected for the same rationale for claims 4, 6, and 8-9, respectively.
Claim 19 reciting “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions for a server that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:”, is corresponding to the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale for claim 1.
In addition, the combination of Peng, Isaac, and Li discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions for a server that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: (Peng, page 10, Claim 15, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, configured to store a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out actions, comprising”; page 2, para. [0019], “The principles of the present disclosure are implemented by using many other general purpose or special purpose computing, communication environments, or configurations. … servers, multi-processor systems, microcomputer-based systems”).
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu, and further in view of Wogsberg (US 20050195206 A1, hereinafter “Wogsberg”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu fails to disclose, but in the same art of computer graphics, Wogsberg discloses
identifying, for each content item stream of the plurality of content item streams, one or more content frames; (Wogsberg, para. [0011], “Upon completion of capture of a frame of the incoming motion video signal, the frame buffer to which the newly completed frame was written is recorded as the most recently completed frame buffer, sometimes referred to as the next read frame buffer. For the next incoming frame of the motion video signal, the process of selecting a frame buffer into which to store the incoming frame is repeated”). Note that the frames from each content item stream can be accommodated into frame buffer.
identifying, for each content item stream of the plurality of content item streams, a most recent content frame of the one or more content frames; and (Wogsberg, page 1, para. [0011], “As writing of incoming frames of the various motion video signals completes, the frame buffers which store the most recently completed frames change-asynchronously with one another and asynchronously with the completion of scanning of frames of the output composite video display. Thus, a wide variety of frame rates of incoming motion video signals can be accommodated”). Note that the frame buffers accommodate a most recent content frames from each content item stream.
responsive to determining, for each content item stream of the plurality of content item streams, that the most recent content frame satisfies a criterion, including the most recent content frame in the rendered composition. (Wogsberg, page 2, para. [0014], “if more than one frame of an incoming motion video signal completes during a single output scan of the frame buffers, the frame buffer recorded as storing the most recently completed frame periodically changes multiple times before being used to update the designation of the read frame buffer for that motion video image. Accordingly, all but the last frame completed since the previous output scan completed are dropped. Similarly, if successive output scans of the frame buffers complete before another frame of the motion video signal is received due to a relatively slow frame rate of the motion video signal, there is no change in the frame buffer storing the most recently completed frame at the time the new output scan begins and the previously displayed frame of the motion video signal is repeated in the composite display”). Note that: (1) For each content item stream, if more than one frame of an incoming motion video signal completes during a single output scan of the frame buffers (i.e., after the previous rendered composite and before current rendered composite), the most recent content frame is used for the current rendered composition and all other frames are dropped. It is obvious that the most recent content frame has not used by the previous rendered composition; (2) For each content item stream, if there is no change in the frame buffer storing the most recently completed frame at the time the new output scan begins, it is obvious that the most recent content frame has been used by previous rendered compositions (i.e., one or more before current rendered composition) and is not changed so that the most recent content frame is not needed to be included in current rendered composite for wasting the compute and power, while the corresponding video signals for the content item stream in previous rendered composite is just repeated; and (3) Therefore this can be a condition or a criterion for the current rendered composite to include the unused most recent content frame in current rendered composition. In other words, the criterion is that the most recent content frame has not been included in a previous rendered composition.
The combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu, and Wogsberg, are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to determining a most recent content frame to be included in the current rendered composition, as taught by Wogsberg into the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu. The motivation would have been “This mechanism represents a substantial improvement over previously existing systems in that frame tearing is avoided in an arbitrarily large number of incoming motion video streams.” (Wogsberg, para. [0015]). The suggestion for doing so would allow to improve the user experience when accommodating various frame rates of a plurality of content streams and render a proper composition for display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Peng, Isaac, Li, Liu, and Wogsberg.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, Liu, and Wogsberg discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to determining that the most recent content frame has not been included in a previous rendered composition of the plurality of content item streams. (Wogsberg, page 2, para. [0014], “if more than one frame of an incoming motion video signal completes during a single output scan of the frame buffers, the frame buffer recorded as storing the most recently completed frame periodically changes multiple times before being used to update the designation of the read frame buffer for that motion video image. Accordingly, all but the last frame completed since the previous output scan completed are dropped. Similarly, if successive output scans of the frame buffers complete before another frame of the motion video signal is received due to a relatively slow frame rate of the motion video signal, there is no change in the frame buffer storing the most recently completed frame at the time the new output scan begins and the previously displayed frame of the motion video signal is repeated in the composite display”; page 5, para. [0051], “the frame rate of the incoming video signal differs from the frame rate of display 102 requiring that frames of the incoming video signal are dropped or repeated. If the frame rate of the incoming video signal is greater than the frame rate of display 102, the incoming video signal includes too many frames to be displayed by display 102 and some frames of the incoming video signal are dropped and not displayed in display 102. If the frame rate of the incoming video signal is less than the frame rate of display 102, too few frames are included in the incoming video signal for display only once in display 102 and some frames of the incoming video signal are repeated in display 102”). Note that: (1) a criterion or condition can be defined as determining the most recent content frame of a content item stream has not been used or included in a previous rendered composition; and (2) The criterion enables a rendering to include the unused most recent content frame in current rendered composition, or not to include the most recent content frame used in a previous rendered composition for current rendered composition.
The motivation to combine Peng, Isaac, Li, Liu, and Wogsberg given in claim 2 is incorporated here.
Claims 11-12 are corresponding to the method claims 2-3, respectively. Therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected for the same rationale for claims 2-3, respectively.
Claim 20 is corresponding to the method of claim 2. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale for claim 2.
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20230083932 A1, hereinafter “Li_Yuhui”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu fails to disclose, but in the same art of computer graphics, Li_Yuhui discloses the user experience metric reflects one of a minimum frame rate or a harmonic frame rate of the corresponding content item stream, determined over the period of time. (Li_Yuhui, ABSTRACT, “The frame rate parameters for various animations sources can have differing preferred, minimum, and/or maximum frame rates, and the global frame rate may be determined for concurrent display of multiple animations from the multiple animation sources”; page 3, para. [0035], “a scrolling animation source may determine a preferred, minimum, and/or maximum frame rate at a given time during the scroll by: receiving a scrolling input and applying the scrolling input to a model (e.g., a human perception model) to obtain the frame rate parameters. For example, the scrolling animation may obtain a speed of the scrolling input, and extract a frame rate that corresponds to that scrolling input from the human perception model as a preferred frame rate or a minimum frame rate”). Note that: (1) a minimum frame rate can be determined at a given time during the scroll; and (2) The frame rate is regarded as the user experience metric.
The combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu, and Li_Yuhui are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to determining a minimum frame rate during a given time period, as taught by Li_Yuhui into the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu. The motivation would have been “can reduce power consumption by the display” (Li_Yuhui, page 1, para. [0020]). The suggestion for doing so would allow to improve power consumption efficiency by the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Peng, Isaac, Li, Liu, and Li_Yuhui.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, Liu, and Li_Yuhui discloses The method of claim 6, wherein determining the stabilized FPS metric for each content item stream comprises:
identifying, for each content item stream, a plurality of actual frame rates over the period of time; and (Li_Yuhui, page 3, para. [0035], “a scrolling animation source may determine a preferred, minimum, and/or maximum frame rate at a given time during the scroll by: receiving a scrolling input and applying the scrolling input to a model (e.g., a human perception model) to obtain the frame rate parameters. For example, the scrolling animation may obtain a speed of the scrolling input, and extract a frame rate that corresponds to that scrolling input from the human perception model as a preferred frame rate or a minimum frame rate”). Note that for a scrolling animation source (i.e., a content item stream), the actual frame rates including a preferred, minimum, and/or maximum frame rate, and other frame rate parameters are determined or identified.
identifying, for each content item stream, a lowest of the plurality of actual frame rates, wherein the lowest of the plurality of actual frame rates satisfies a threshold condition. (Li_Yuhui, page 3, para. [0035], “a minimum frame rate for the particular animation may be a frame rate below which optical artifacts such as glitches or blur may be perceptible on the display”). Note that: (1) for each of animation sources (i.e., each content item stream) the minimum frame rate in the citation here can be regarded as a lowest of the plurality of actual rates since it specifies the frame rate threshold below which optical artifacts such as glitches or blur may be perceptible on the display; and (2) “below which optical artifacts such as glitches or blur may be perceptible on the display” can be account for a threshold condition.
The motivation to combine Peng, Isaac, Li, Liu, and Li_Yuhui given in claim 5 is incorporated here.
Claims 14 and 16 are corresponding to the method of claims 5 and 7. Therefore, claims 14 and 16 are rejected for the same rationale for claims 5 and 7, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim rejection 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges, “The Office action states that "the stabilized FPS metric or value is affected or based on the user experience metric" because Li teaches that "the recognized frame rate can be used as the target frame rate used by the operating system for frame stabilization, so as to improve the user experience of the application and avoid or reduce unnecessary power consumption." (Office Action, p. 6; citing Li, p. 8, lines 23-26). However, this conclusion conflates the effect of frame stabilization with the input used to derive the stabilization value. In Li, improved user experience and reduced power consumption are potential results of frame stabilization. Li does not teach or suggest a stabilization value derived from a user experience metric that represents a power consumption metric, a network stability metric, a network congestion metric, and/or an operating temperature metric, as recited in amended claim 1. Thus, Li does not cure the deficiencies of Peng and Isaac. Similar language is also included in independent claims 10 and 17. Thus, the proposed combination of cited references does not teach or suggest all the features of the independent claims 1, 10, and 17 and corresponding dependent claims. Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 be withdrawn.” (page 10, lines 3-19). Examiner agrees that the stabilized FPS metric or value is affected or based on the user experience metric instead of being derived from user experience metric However, Examiner respectfully disagrees about the respective allegations as whole because: (1) In the same art of computer graphics, Liu discloses that a stabilization value (25fps) can be derived or adjusted from the user experience metric (temperature) with regard to a temperature threshold. The corresponding motivation to combine Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu is described above; (2) the combination of Peng, Isaac, Li, and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1; (3) independent claims 10 and 17 are corresponding to claim 1. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same rationale for claim 1. And (4) claims 4, 6, 8-9, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected for the respective rationale above. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges, “Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are patentable over the cited references. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.”) (page 10, page 27-29). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees about the respective allegations as whole because: claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are rejected for the respective rationale. The arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIAO CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Kee M Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/Biao Chen/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights