DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C et al. (U.S. Patent 10,319,116) and Loughry et al. (U.S. Patent 11,107,258).
In reference to claim 1, C et al. discloses a computing device (see column 15, lines 60-66, column 16, lines 4-14 and Figure 7 wherein C et al. discloses a mobile device such as a smartphone, tablet, e-reader or the like which renders content in different colors to the display of the mobile device.), comprising:
a display device configured to display a frame (see column 3, lines 35-37, column 14, lines 16-20, Figures 1 2, and #122 of Figure 7 wherein C et al. discloses the display of the mobile device displaying a first screen showing rendered content. Note, it is clear that the content displayed in C et al. can also at least inherently be interpreted as a “frame” of display as claimed.);
a display processor (see column 17, lines 4-30 and #432 of Figure 7 wherein C et al. discloses the mobile device comprising one or more processors which may be configured to access memory and execute computer-executable instructions loaded therein. C et al. further discloses the processor(s) may include any type of suitable processing unit for performing the invention which again, is rendering content in different colors on the display therefore, the Examiner interprets the at least one processor to be functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “display processor.”) configured to identify a region of interest in the frame based on a type of content displayed in the region of interest and a remainder region in the frame; and
a composer module coupled to the display device and the display processor, and configured to apply a night mode color process to the remainder region and not to the region of interest, and to provide a composition of the remainder region and the region of interest to the display device for presentation (see column 10, lines 38-45, columns 13-14, lines 64-13, column 14, lines 14-23, column 20, lines 16-34, 49-58, #446, 460 of Figure 7 wherein C et al. discloses the mobile device performing adjustment of color content across different optional modes of the mobile device. C et al. discloses determining a blended color to present for images such that a “night mode” maybe enabled wherein a background, which is normally ”white” in default operating mode, is switched to a blended text background color. C et al. gives the explicit example of modifying a smiley line art image that is kept untouched while its background portion is switched, when “night mode” is enabled, to a blended text background color ensuring contrast ratios are satisfied. C et al. discloses a plurality of “modules” that perform the processing of the invention such as a “color detection module” and a “color blending module” of which the Examiner interprets the combination thereof functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “composer module.” Note, the Examiner interprets the background of the smiley line art functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “remainder region” while the actual “smiley line art itself functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “region of interest.” C et al. discloses displaying the adjusted text background color and smiley line art on the display which the Examiner interprets at least inherently creates a “composition” or merging of data.), wherein the type of content is based on a selection made by a user of the computing device.
Although C et al. does disclose performing the “night mode” color processing of different regions of content rendered to a mobile display device, C et al. does not explicitly disclose identifying the region of interest in the frame based on a type of content displayed in the region of interest and a remainder region in a frame wherein the type of content is based on a selection made by a user. Loughry et al. discloses techniques to modifying content to be displayed in a graphical user interface to improve visibility and aesthetics (see column 1, lines 15-17). Loughry et al. discloses the invention performed via a computer system that comprises a processor and multiple memories for storing executable instructions for performing the invention (see column 8, lines 14-32 and Figure 5). Loughry et al. discloses the computer system further comprising a display such as an LCD (see column 8, lines 39-41 and Figure 5). Loughry et al. discloses the invention receiving content to be displayed typically in the form of HTML however other formatted content may be used (see column 5, lines 38-55 and column 6, lines 22-28). Loughry et al. explicitly discloses parsing the contents of the HTML to identify and define each element to be displayed in the graphical user interface (see column 6, lines 12-16). Loughry et al. discloses the graphical user interface in the form of an email/text user interface (see at least Figures 2A-B) thus, it is clear that the processing of Loughry et al. of determining a background element is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s determination of a “remainder region” or a region other than the text object (e.g. region of interest since again, the purpose of the GUI in Loughry et al. is to read email/text). Loughry et al. discloses determining objects to define a background element and color characteristics for a text object (see column 6, lines 29-26). Loughry et al. further explicitly discloses modifying such elements in view of different operating “modes” such as a “dark mode,” specifically changing different colors or formatting of the elements (see at least column 3, lines 16-20, column 4, lines 52-66 and Figures 2-3). Lastly, it is clear that the content modified and displayed in Loughry et al. can also at least inherently be interpreted as a “frame” of display data as claimed. Additionally, Loughry et al. further allows for different “panes” or “content” of the graphical user interface to be set, via user selection of toggle button elements, to be set to “dark mode” vs. remaining “bright” (see columns 4-5, lines 66-11 and #240B, 245B of Figure 2B). In other words, the “selection by the user” of the toggle buttons allows for the different areas of the displayed graphical user interface, which inherently display “different types of content” to be displayed in different manners (e.g. dark mode vs. not dark mode.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the content modifying and parsing techniques of Loughry et al. with the color content processing techniques of C et al. in order to modify certain portions of displayable content for improving visibility while still preserving original color formatting which maybe lost when performing “global” content-type color adjustments (see column 3, lines 24-36 of Loughry et al.). (see Response to Arguments below)
In reference to claims 2, 9, 16 and 23, C et al. and Loughry et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 respectively. C et al. also discloses adjusting the color of the actual text color to generate an adjusted text color which entails a comparison to the background color to ensure a threshold contrast ratio and displaying the blended background color and the adjusted text color (see column 12, lines 41-67 and Figure 2). Note, the Examiner interprets the adjustment of text color in C et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “normal color process” taking into consideration the 35 USC 112 issues as seen above.
In reference to claims 3, 10, 17 and 24, C et al. and Loughry et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 respectively. C et al. also discloses adjusting the color of the actual text color to generate an adjusted text color which entails a comparison to the background color to ensure a threshold contrast ratio and displaying the blended background color and the adjusted text color (see column 12, lines 41-67 and Figure 2). C et al. gives an explicit example of modifying a smiley line art image that is kept untouched while its background portion is switched, when “night mode” is enabled, to a blended text background color ensuring contrast ratios are satisfied (see columns 13-14, lines 64-13). C et al. discloses a plurality of “modules” that perform the processing of the invention such as a “color detection module” and a “color blending module” of which the Examiner interprets the combination thereof functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “composer module” (see column 20, lines 16-34, 49-58 and Figure 7). Loughry et al. discloses parsing the contents of the HTML to identify and define each element to be displayed in the graphical user interface (see column 6, lines 12-16). Loughry et al. explicitly discloses that other formats can be utilized and parsed to determine portions with like styles or other characteristics (see column 6, lines 22-28). Since C et al. explicitly discloses the modules performing their functions, “in response to execution by the processor(s)” and Loughry et al. discloses performing the parsing of contents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the combination of cited prior art to “communicate” data/commands between modules and processor including actual parsed contents in order for such modules to perform their function thereon. Motivation to perform such a modification would be to offload certain aspects of computer graphics or other data processing to different processors in order to execute an efficient computing environment.
In reference to claims 5, 12, 19 and 26, C et al. and Loughry et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 respectively. C et al. discloses displaying the adjusted text background color and smiley line art on the display (see at least #222 of Figure 2). Loughry et al. discloses the invention receiving content to be displayed typically in the form of HTML however other formatted content may be used (see column 5, lines 38-55 and column 6, lines 22-28). Loughry et al. discloses parsing the contents of the HTML to identify and define each element to be displayed in the graphical user interface (see column 6, lines 12-16). Again Loughry et al. explicitly discloses that other formats can be utilized and parsed to determine portions with like styles or other characteristics (see column 6, lines 22-28). Loughry et al. discloses determining objects to define a background element and color characteristics for a text object (see column 6, lines 29-26). Note, it is clear that the processing of Loughry et al. determining a background element is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s determination of a “remainder region” or a region other than the text object (e.g. region of interest) determined by Loughry et al. Loughry et al. further explicitly discloses modifying such elements in view of different operating “modes” such as a “dark mode,” specifically changing different colors or formatting of the elements (see at least column 3, lines 16-20, column 4, lines 52-66 and Figures 2-3). Lastly, it is clear that the content modified and displayed in Loughry et al. can also at least inherently be interpreted as a “frame” of display data as claimed.
In reference to claims 6-7, 13-14, 20-21 and 27-28, C et al. and Loughry et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 respectively. C et al. discloses adjusting the color of the actual text color to generate an adjusted text color which entails a comparison to the background color to ensure a threshold contrast ratio and displaying the blended background color and the adjusted text color (see column 12, lines 41-67 and Figure 2). Note, the Examiner interprets the adjustment of text color in C et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “normal color mode” taking into consideration the 35 USC 112 issues as seen above. C et al. also explicitly discloses accepting user input for specific colors for specific objects with such colors forming themes that can be associated with one or more operational modes (see columns 10-11, lines 62-14).
In reference to claim 8, claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. Claim 8 recites a “method” of the invention of which the Examiner deems has at least inherently been disclosed by the teachings shown in the above rejection of claim 1.
In reference to claim 15, claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. Claim 15 recites a “device” comprising “means” for performing the invention of the invention of which the Examiner deems have been disclosed by the teachings shown in the above rejection of claim 1.
In reference to claim 22, claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 22 further recites, “A non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processing device in a computing device to perform operations comprising:” As seen above C et al. discloses the mobile device comprising one or more processors which may be configured to access memory and execute computer-executable instructions loaded therein (see column 17, lines 4-30 and #432 of Figure 7). Loughry et al. discloses the invention performed via a computer system that comprises a processor and multiple memories for storing executable instructions for performing the invention (see column 8, lines 14-32 and Figure 8).
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C et al. (U.S. Patent 10,319,116), Loughry et al. (U.S. Patent 11,107,258) and further in view of Thangam (U.S. Publication 2020/0356466).
In reference to claims 4, 11, 18 and 25, C et al. and Loughry et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 3, 10, 17 and 24 respectively above. C et al. also discloses adjusting the color of the actual text color to generate an adjusted text color which entails a comparison to the background color to ensure a threshold contrast ratio and displaying the blended background color and the adjusted text color (see column 12, lines 41-67 and Figure 2). Note, the Examiner interprets the adjustment of text color in C et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “normal color mode” taking into consideration the 35 USC 112 issues as seen above. Neither C et al. or Loughry et al. however, explicitly disclose utilizing a machine learning model to identify a region of interest in the frame image data. Thangam discloses techniques for utilizing machine learning algorithms as applied to elements contained with HTML DOM models for a web page (see paragraph 8). Thangam discloses a computer implemented method that parses HTML data using machine learning using a machine learning module (see paragraphs 34 and 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement machine learning parsing techniques as in Thangam with the content color processing and parsing techniques of C et al. and Loughry et al. in order process large amounts of “chaotic” data which may not strictly follow format standards thereby allowing for computer automation, via for example machine learning, to more efficiently and easily parse such large amounts of data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to claims 1-28, Applicant argues 35 USC 103 rejection of the claim based upon C et al., Loughry et al. and Thangam in particular, Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art teach the newly amended limitations of “identify[ing] a region of interest based on a type of content displayed in the region of interest and a remainder region in the frame” where “the type of content is based on a selection made by a user of the computing device” (see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks). Lastly, Applicant also argues the Examiner is using impermissible hindsight when combining the references to arrive at the Applicant’s invention (see page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. Loughry et al. additionally allows for different “panes” or “content” of the graphical user interface to be set, via user selection of toggle button elements, to be set to “dark mode” vs. remaining “bright” (see columns 4-5, lines 66-11 and #240B, 245B of Figure 2B). In other words, the “selection by the user” of the toggle buttons allows for the different areas of the displayed graphical user interface, which inherently display “different types of content” to be displayed in different manners (e.g. dark mode vs. not dark mode.). Even further with reference to Figures 2A-C of Loughry et al., it is clear that a user of the invention may select any “email” from the summary email pane #225B thus allowing for further “selection by the user” techniques to be interpreted there as. Although Applicant may mean for the claim limitation to signify something further than what is in the claim, the Examiner believes the application of Loughry et al. to be just thus for at least these reasons, the Examiner deems the combination of the cited prior art as teaching the claims as written.
As per Applicant’s remarks regarding the use of impermissible hindsight, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The prior art of record clearly indicate such knowledge being within the level of ordinary skill in at the tie the claimed invention was made therefore the rejection is deemed proper.
Therefore, for at least these reasons the Examiner deems the cited prior art rejections based upon C et al., Loughry et al. and Thangam as just.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified 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 Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
3/18/26