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 Arguments
A portion of Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1 and similar claims in substance, Applicant states, “The Office Action relies on Rennuit as allegedly disclosing the features of "running, by the electronic device, a second application," "re-invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to display a second animation of the second application, wherein the animation configuration file comprises M feature attributes of the second animation and values corresponding to the M feature attributes, and M is a positive integer." Rennuit, however, discloses only that a main program/application 800 may use input received from a user (e.g. a player of a computer game when the main program 800 is configured to provide a computer game) via the user interface module 802. The main program 800 may use one or more animation configuration files which specify a desired animation for the object 200 and from which the main program 800 may determine (i.e. read and/or calculate) the target frames 704. Rennuit at [0127]. As such, Rennuit only discloses one application that uses animation configuration files. Rennuit is also silent on a first application that invokes an animation configuration file to display a first animation of the first application and a second application that re-invokes the animation configuration file to display a second animation of the second application.
As such, Rennuit doesn't disclose the features of claim 1 of "running, by the electronic device, a second application," and "re-invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to display a second animation of the second application, wherein the animation configuration file comprises M feature attributes of the second animation and values corresponding to the M feature attributes, and M is a positive integer."”
However, Gevlich discloses a device with a program (Column 3, lines 5-53 and column 17, lines 58-61) that can prepare a configuration file for an animation and playback the animation using the configuration file (Column 4, lines 1-48). Rennuit discloses a program that can use configuration files for animating an object (Paragraph 0127). Since Gevlich’s program performs preparation of a configuration file and playback using the configuration file and Rennuit discloses a program only for playback using a configuration file, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Rennuit’s program to be a different program than Gevlich’s program.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and similar claims in substance under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bui et al. (US 2021/0004576 A1).
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) 1-5, 8, 11-15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevlich (US 10,423,716 B2) in view of Rennuit et al. (US 2011/0267358 A1) and further in view of Bui et al. (US 2021/0004576 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gevlich discloses a method, comprising: running, by an electronic device, a first application; (Column 3, lines 5-53 and column 17, lines 58-61, device running a program for preparing and editing an animation) invoking, by the electronic device, an animation configuration file to display a first animation of the first application, wherein the animation configuration file comprises N feature attributes of the first animation and values corresponding to the N feature attributes, and N is a positive integer (Column 4, lines 1-48, the device running the application allows for preparation of a configuration file having animation that can be played back for evaluation, where the configuration file has data of frame visualization (aspect ratio, resolution, color, transparency, FPS, etc.)). Gevlich does not clearly disclose running, by the electronic device, a second application; and re-invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to display a second animation of the second application, wherein the animation configuration file comprises M feature attributes of the second animation and values corresponding to the M feature attributes, and M is a positive integer. Rennuit discloses a separate program that can use configuration files for animation of objects (Paragraph 0127). Rennuit’s technique of using configuration files by a separate program for animation would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the application for preparation of configuration files for animation of Gevlich and the results would have been predictable in a program using configuration files produced by another application for animation. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Gevlich and Rennuit each discloses different devices (Gevlich, column 3, lines 5-19 and Rennuit, paragraph 0074). Gevlich in view of Rennuit does not clearly disclose wherein different types of electronic devices correspond to different feature configuration files. Bui discloses determining client device capabilities and generating a configuration file based on the device capabilities for performing a task (Paragraph 0008). Bui’s technique of determining client device capabilities and generating a configuration file based on the device capabilities for performing a task would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the devices of Gevlich in view of Rennuit and the results would have been predictable in the determination and generation of configuration files based on the capabilities of different devices for performing a task. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The Examiner notes that the claimed “feature configuration file” is different from the also claimed “animation configuration file.”
Regarding claim 2, Gevlich in view of Rennuit and further in view of Bui discloses wherein running, by the electronic device, the first application comprises: receiving, by the electronic device, a first operation, (Gevlich, column 3, lines 5-19, inputs into the device) and running, by the electronic device, the first application in response to receiving the first operation; (Gevlich, column 3, lines 20-53, running the application based on the inputs) and wherein running, by the electronic device, the second application comprises: receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation, (Rennuit, paragraph 0127, input by a user) and running, by the electronic device, the second application in response to receiving the second operation (Rennuit, paragraph 0127, operating the program based on the user input).
Regarding claim 3, Gevlich in view of Rennuit and further in view of Bui discloses wherein the N feature attributes and the M feature attributes each comprise a first feature attribute of the animation configuration file, a value corresponding to the first feature attribute is a first value, and the method further comprises: modifying, by the electronic device, the first value corresponding to the first feature attribute to a second value; (Gevlich, column 5 lines 28-29, preparing data of frame visualization (i.e., aspect ratio, resolution, color, transparency, FPS, etc.) of the configuration file) receiving, by the electronic device, a third operation; (Gevlich, column 5, lines 5-53, inputs into the application) re-running, by the electronic device, the first application in response to the third operation; (Gevlich, column 5, lines 30-39, repeating editing of the configuration file) re-invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to re-display the first animation based on the second value of the first feature attribute; (Gevlich, column, lines 30-39, replaying the animation based on changes to the configuration file and its data of frame visualization) receiving, by the electronic device, a fourth operation; (Rennuit, paragraph 0127, user input for running the application) re-running, by the electronic device, the second application in response to the fourth operation; (Rennuit, paragraph 0127, using different configuration files, such as the edited configuration file of Gevlich, column 5, lines 30-39) and re-invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to re-display the second animation based on the second value of the first feature attribute (Rennuit, paragraph 0127, animation based on the configuration file that can be edited, Gevlich, column 5, lines 30-39).
Regarding claim 4, Gevlich discloses wherein the M feature attributes and the N feature attributes comprise at least one duration attribute, at least one curve attribute, and at least one frame rate attribute (Column 5, lines 28-29, FPS or frames per second).
Regarding claim 5, Gevlich discloses invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to display a third animation, wherein the animation configuration file comprises an animation template corresponding to the third animation, and the animation template is defined by at least one of the N feature attributes or the M feature attributes (Column 5, lines 20-39, data of frame visualization of the configuration file can be changed to produce new animation that can be played back).
Regarding claim 8, Gevlich discloses when a preset rule is met, modifying, by the electronic device, a value corresponding to a second feature attribute of a fifth animation in the animation configuration file (Column 5, lines 35-39, depending on a negative result from playing back the configuration file, the configuration file can be edited).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied. Furthermore, Gevlich further discloses a processor, a memory, and a communication interface, wherein the memory and the communication interface are coupled to the processor, the memory stores computer program code, the computer program code comprises computer instructions (Column 17, lines 33-38, processing unit and memory coupled by a system bus where the memory can have instructions, column 17, lines 58-61).
Regarding claim 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 21 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein invoking, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to display the first animation of the first application comprises: obtaining, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file, and storing the animation configuration file in application data of the first application; parsing, by the electronic device, the animation configuration file to generate an animation model parameter table of the first application; and obtaining, by the electronic device based on the animation model parameter table of the first application, the N feature attributes of the first animation and the parameter values corresponding to the N feature attributes, and displaying the first animation.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 8, wherein the preset rule is that within a preset time period, a quantity of times that a time interval between two adjacent user operations is less than preset time exceeds a threshold; and wherein modifying, by the electronic device, the value corresponding to the second feature attribute of the fifth animation in the animation configuration file comprises: decreasing, by the electronic device, a value corresponding to a duration attribute of the fifth animation in the animation configuration file, wherein the second feature attribute comprises the duration attribute.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 8, wherein the preset rule is that when a current time of the electronic device is within a first time period, a configuration of the animation configuration file is a first configuration; and when the current time of the electronic device is within a second time period, the configuration of the animation configuration file is a second configuration, wherein a value corresponding to a duration attribute of the fifth animation in the first configuration is less than a value corresponding to the duration attribute of the fifth animation in the second configuration, and the second feature attribute comprises the duration attribute.
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the animation configuration file includes a common configuration file and a feature configuration file, and all types of electronic devices correspond to the same common configuration file.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2015/0280992 A1) discloses preparing configuration files for individual devices.
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 PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619