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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muikaichi (JP 2006098935 A) in view of Visscher (US 2017/0085928 A1) and Chen (WO 2021042655 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muikaichi teaches a method, performed by a display device, of processing an image, the method comprising: obtaining a video and graphics to be displayed on a display of the display device (paragraph [0001]); based on identifying a change in a changed display region in which the video is displayed (paragraph [0013] – “video display area change request”), creating a first buffer queue (paragraph [0003], [0024] buffer A 801) for storing the graphics (paragraph [0003], [0024]) and a second buffer queue (paragraph [0003], [0024] buffer B 802) for storing the video (paragraphs [0003], [0024]); determining a first delay for the first buffer queue (paragraph [0021]); storing the graphics in the first buffer queue with the first delay (paragraphs [0003], [0024]); and mixing the processed graphics with the processed video and outputting a result of the mixing (paragraphs [0001], [0021]).
Muikaichi fails to explicitly teach determining a first delay for the first buffer queue based on a picture quality processing mode for the video; storing the video in the second buffer queue; processing the graphics stored in the first buffer queue to obtain processed graphics; processing the video stored in the second buffer queue, based on the picture quality processing mode for the video to obtain processed video;
However, Visscher teaches storing the video in the second buffer queue (Fig. 3A #206, paragraphs [0039], [0041], [0042]); processing the graphics stored in the first buffer queue to obtain processed graphics (Fig. 3B); processing the video stored in the second buffer queue, to obtain processed video (Fig. 3B, paragraphs [0041]); Visscher is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of graphics and video processing techniques. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Visscher with Muikaichi to specify the processing of the buffers and base this processing, of the video buffer in particular, on the picture quality processing mode to improve the user experience (paragraph [0005]).
Visscher fails to teach determining a first delay for the first buffer queue based on a picture quality processing mode for the video;
However Chen teaches determining a first delay based on a picture quality processing mode for the video (paragraph 4 of pg. 4, paragraph 6 (third to last) of pg. 9, paragraphs 5 & 6 of pg. 24). Chen describes a delay being generated based on the picture quality of image data. This is analogous to determining a first delay based on a picture quality processing for the video. Chen is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of video synchronization. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chen with Muikaichi in view of Visscher and utilize the picture quality delay of Chen in order to better synchronize multiple streams of data, replacing the audio processing of Chen with the graphics processing of Muikaichi in view of Visscher.
Regarding claim 2, Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Muikaichi further teaches wherein the changed display region comprises at least one of a size and a position at which the video is displayed (paragraph [0015]). Muikaichi describes changing the size of a display unit.
Regarding claim 4, Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen teach the method of claim 1. Muikaichi further teaches wherein the storing the graphics in the first buffer queue with the first delay comprises: storing, in queue positions of the first buffer queue (paragraphs [0009], [0018], [0019] – predicted delay time and video and graphics times can be considered queue positions) allocated before the first delay, frames of the graphics immediately prior to a time point when the video is displayed in the changed display region (paragraph [0013] – “register is characterized by a delay of several frames”); and sequentially storing (paragraphs [0018], [0019] – time adjustment and time delay lead to sequential storage), in the first buffer queue allocated after the first delay, frames of the graphics from the time point when the video is displayed in the changed display region (paragraphs [0013], [0019]-[0021], [0023]). Claim 4 broadly recited a method of delaying graphics display when the display area of the video is changed. This is done using the previously described buffer and delay system, with additional specification as to the buffer being sequential. Muikaichi describes delaying the display of graphics when the display area of the video is changed. While Muikaichi does not directly describe “queue positions” it does describe a form of queue positions, those being the “specified time” present in paragraph [0023]. While this specified time is used in calculating the delay through a command, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also include this specified time in the graphics buffer to further generalize the invention and allow for the delay to be applicable more generalizable embodiments.
Regarding claim 6, Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Muikaichi further teaches wherein the changed display region is determined based on a size and a position thereof relative to an overall display size of the display device (figs. 3 & 4, paragraph [0015]). Muikaichi describes enlarging the size of a display area and moving it in a specified direction. While this does not directly mention a position, a position is necessary for this process to function. Furthermore, figure 3 of Muikaichi clearly shows the position and size of the display area change relative to the total screen size.
Apparatus claims 8-10, and 13 are drawn to the corresponding apparatus of the method claimed in claims 1-3 and 6. Therefore, the apparatus claims 8-10, 13 correspond to the method claims 1-3, and 6, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
CRM claims 15-17, and 20 are drawn to the corresponding CRM which implements the method claimed in claims 1-3 and 6. Therefore, the CRM claims 15-17, and 20 correspond to the method claims 1-3, and 6, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen and in further view of Hwang (KR 20180138418 A).
Regarding claim 3, Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen fail to teach wherein the first delay is based on a number of queue positions of the first buffer queue in which frames of the graphics to be delayed and output are stored, relative to a position in the second buffer queue in which a frame of the video at a corresponding time point is stored.
However, Hwang teaches wherein the first delay is based on a number of queue positions of the first buffer queue in which frames to be delayed and output are stored, relative to a position in the second buffer queue in which a frame of the video at a corresponding time point is stored (claims 7-9) Hwang describes the calculation of a delay time for a queue by dividing the queue into two groups (analogous to two queues) and determine the delay time using a frame number (analogous to queue position), frames stored after transmission of aggregated frames (specific times) and the length of the queues. Hwang is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of video transmission methods. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the delay calculation method of Hwang with Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen in order to ensure transmission times are not overly delayed and degrading the user experience (Hwang - Summary Of Invention).
Apparatus claim 11 is drawn to the corresponding apparatus of the method claimed in claim 3. Therefore, the apparatus claims 11 corresponds to the method claims 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
CRM claims 18 is drawn to the corresponding CRM which implements the method claimed in claims 3. Therefore, the CRM claims 18 corresponds to the method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen and in further view of Bendapudi (US 2023/0108645 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen teach the method of claim 1. Muikaichi in view of Visscher fails to explicitly teach wherein the picture quality processing mode is determined based on attributes of the video.
However, Bendapudi teaches wherein the picture quality processing mode is determined based on attributes of the video (paragraph [0112]). Bendapudi describes determining resolution based on video content to improve overall playback quality. Bendapudi is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of video processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bendapudi with Muikaichi in view of Visscher in order to improve playback quality.
Apparatus claim 12 is drawn to the corresponding apparatus of the method claimed in claim 5. Therefore, the apparatus claim 12 corresponds to the method claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
CRM claim 19 is drawn to the corresponding CRM which implements the method claimed in claim 5. Therefore, the CRM claim 19 corresponds to the method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen and in further view of Sumita (JP 2012186569 A).
Regarding claim 7, Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen teach the method of claim 1. Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen fails to explicitly teach wherein the first delay increases as a resolution of the picture quality processing mode increases.
However, Sumita teaches wherein the first delay increases as a resolution of the picture quality processing mode increases (paragraph 10 of pg. 2). Sumita describes a coded picture buffer (CPB) and its relationship with the image quality and delay. Sumita describes this relationship to be as the size of the buffer increases, the image quality and delay also increase. This is proportional relationship of delay and resolution analogous to what is described above. Sumita is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it in the same field of video processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sumita with the Muikaichi in view of Visscher and Chen in order to maintain slice independence and prevent error propagation.
Apparatus claim 14 is drawn to the corresponding apparatus of the method claimed in claim 7. Therefore, the apparatus claim 14 corresponds to the method claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3 and last paragraph of page 4, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3 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 grounds of rejection is made in view of Chen (WO 2021042655 A1) and Hwang (KR 20180138418 A).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 3 and 4 that Visscher does not teach processing graphics stored in the first buffer to obtain processed data. Applicant states “there is no processing of the graphics data in the queue since this would add to latency and degrade user experience”, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant explains their position stating “the shallow buffer of Visscher is merely a low latency (low delay) buffer so that user interface graphics can be output to the user of a remote control without delay”. The description of a low delay buffer being without delay is contradictive, a low latency buffer does not imply there is no delay but that it minimizes delay. Additionally the outputting of interface graphics and video information along with the checking of whether these elements are the correct size (shown in cited figure 3b) can be considered processing of the graphics data and processing of the video data. Outputting these forms of data alone can be considered processing them and the process of ensuring their size before output creates processed data as the output. Applicant further argues that the motivation to combine Visscher with Muikaichi is improper as the processing of graphics data in the queue would add latency and degrade user experience. However, as described above, Visscher teaches that the processing of data stored in the buffers does not add significant latency because the graphics are processed in a low latency setting. Additionally, applicant fails to respond to the other motivation to combine, which is specifying implementation of graphics processing (obvious under KSR rationales D, E and F of MPEP 2143). For the above reasons, Visscher remains as previously applied to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights