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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The text in the figures are difficult to read.
In Fig. 1, there are no “yes” and “no” markings on the branching paths of the flow chart as seen on other figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0085, “three color” should be “three-color”.
In paragraph 0085, “565 pixel” should be “565-pixel”.
In paragraph 0090, “format .” should be “format.”.
Paragraphs “00100” through “00199” should be “0100” through “0199”.
In paragraph 00102, “buffer ,” should be “buffer,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: The use of “if so”, “if not”, and “correspondingly” statements make the claims difficult to determine the order at which the limitations occur. For instance, in claim 2, it is difficult to determine whether the “correspondingly” statement in lines 10-12 refer to the “if so” statement in lines 8-9, or to the previous limitation in lines 6-7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is inconsistent on how the buffers are numbered (i.e. “fifth buffer” in claim 6), as the increasing numbering implies that the claims are dependent on each other. For the purposes of clarity, the examiner respectfully suggests using “first buffer memory” for claims 3, 4, 6, and 7, and “second buffer memory” for claims 5 and 8 to avoid further confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claim 10 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a receiving module configured to receive”; “a determination module configured to determine”; “the selection display module configured to control”; “the display module configured to control”; in claim 10. The claim limitation uses the generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “receive”, “determine”, and “control”, without reciting sufficient structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 106649621 A, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a screen display method, comprising: ([0002] “This invention relates to the field of information display technology, and in particular to a method and apparatus for displaying comment information”)
receiving information to be displayed; ([0011] “Receive comment data, which includes comment information and display method”)
determining whether a buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than a preset buffer memory; ([0012] “Determine the target memory required to display the comment information based on the display method”, where “the target memory is greater than the available memory” [0013]. Note: the buffer memory is the target memory and the preset buffer memory is the available memory.)
if so, controlling a screen to select a display strategy for reducing buffer memory usage to display the information to be displayed; ([0013] “When the target memory is greater than the available memory, the comment information is displayed in a preset display mode; wherein, the memory required to display the comment information in the preset display mode is less than the available memory”)
and if not, controlling the screen to display the information to be displayed ([0041] “By determining the target memory occupied by the received comment information and comparing it with the currently available memory, it is determined whether the comment information can be displayed normally”, which implies that if the target memory is not greater than the available memory, then the information is displayed normally).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a screen display device, comprising: ([0025] “embodiments of the present invention also provide a device for displaying comment information”)
a receiving module configured to receive information to be displayed; ([0062] “receiving the comment data”, where comment data “which includes comment information and display method” [0076])
a determination module configured to determine whether a buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than a preset buffer memory, ([0062] “the local terminal determines that the display method is mobile display, that is, the target memory is 300K; if the current available memory is 256K, that is, the target memory is greater than the available memory”)
and if so, triggering a selection display module, ([0062] “if the current available memory is 256K, that is, the target memory is greater than the available memory, then the display is performed in a preset display method”)
and if not, triggering a display module; ([0072] “By determining the target memory occupied by the received comment information and comparing it with the currently available memory, it is determined whether the comment information can be displayed normally”, where if the target memory is not greater than the available memory, then the information is displayed normally)
the selection display module configured to control a screen to select a display strategy for reducing buffer memory usage to display the information to be displayed; and the display module configured to control the screen to display the information to be displayed. ([0062] “the display is performed in a preset display method where the memory occupied is less than the available memory”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a device form. Wang further teaches a screen display device, comprising: ([0025] “embodiments of the present invention also provide a device for displaying comment information”)
a memory configured to store a computer program; ([0093] “computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to function in a particular manner”)
and a processor configured to implement steps of the screen display method according to claim 1 when executing the computer program. ([0092] “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor… such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, produce means for implementing the functions specified in one or more flowcharts and/or one or more block diagrams”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106649621 A) in view of Liu et al. (CN 111381748 A, hereinafter Liu).
Wang teaches the screen display method according to claim 1, wherein the information to be displayed is the information to be displayed notified by a terminal device, ([0006] “When a terminal receives a message or comment submitted by a user, it displays the message or comment in various ways”)
and the determining whether the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than the preset buffer memory comprises: determining whether a first buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed in a default format is greater than the preset buffer memory, (“displaying animation takes up 300K of memory”, and “the current available memory is 256K” [0062])
if so, determining that the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than the preset buffer memory; ([0057] “Determine the target memory required to display the comment information in that display mode based on the display mode, that is, the target memory is 300K”, where “the target memory is greater than the available memory” [0062])
correspondingly, the controlling the screen to select a display strategy for reducing buffer memory usage to display the information to be displayed comprises: controlling the screen to display the information to be displayed as a text character; ([0062] “then the display is performed in a preset display method where the memory occupied is less than the available memory, that is, the comment information in the comment data is… displayed in the form of text.”)
if not, determining that the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is not greater than the preset buffer memory; correspondingly, the controlling the screen to display the information to be displayed comprises: controlling the screen to display the information to be displayed in the default format. ([0041] “By determining the target memory occupied by the received comment information and comparing it with the currently available memory, it is determined whether the comment information can be displayed normally.”)
Wang fails to teach the information to be displayed only comprises picture information. However, this is known in the art as taught by Liu. Liu teaches the information to be displayed only comprises picture information ([0072] “the memory occupied by an image is determined by the size of the pixel information contained in the image”). Liu is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to memory management to send images between smart devices. Liu further teaches that “in order to prevent the application from crashing during operation… the memory usage of each image during display can be lower than the corresponding memory usage threshold, thereby reducing the possibility of application crashes caused by the memory usage of image display” [0072]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu to Wang to lower the memory usage of picture information in order to reduce application crashes that can occur due to excessive memory.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106649621 A) in view of Bridges et al. (US 20110019089 A1, hereinafter Bridges).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has substantially similar limitations to claim 2, but instead where the information to be displayed comprises of text information and low-resolution format rather than picture information and text character format. Therefore, the rationale of claim 2 will be used to reject claim 3.
Wang teaches the information to be displayed only comprises text information (“For example, display methods include: displaying in text form”).
However, Wang fails to teach correspondingly, the controlling the screen to select a display strategy for reducing buffer memory usage to display the information to be displayed comprises: controlling the screen to display the information to be displayed in a low-resolution format, wherein the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed in the default format is higher than the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed in the low-resolution format.
However, it is known in the art as known as taught by Bridges. Bridges teaches that “data received at a particular pixel rate may be processed and converted to a different format having a higher or a lower pixel resolution than the input format, thus increasing or decreasing the amount of memory buffering utilized, respectively” [0026]. Bridges is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to buffer memory reduction in relation to sending data between devices. Bridges further teaches “a frame buffer solution that achieves a reduction in storage requirement.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bridges to Wang in order to decrease the buffer memory required to be used and sent between devices.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 presents substantially similar limitations to claim 3, but to be displayed by a screen page UI. The combination of Wang and Bridges further teaches the screen display method according to claim 1, wherein the information to be displayed is the information to be displayed by a screen page UI (Wang; [0004] “smart devices (such as smartphones, tablets, smart TVs, etc.)”. Note: any smart device, such as smartphones, tablets, and smart TVs include screen page UIs).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106649621 A) in view of Hu (CN 106844780 A).
Claim 4 presents substantially similar limitations as claim 2, but instead of picture information, the information to be displayed consists of both picture and text information. Therefore, the rationale of claim 2 will be used to reject claim 4.
Wang does not teach the information to be displayed comprises picture information and text information. However, this is known in the art as taught by Hu. Hu teaches the information to be displayed comprises picture information and text information ([0010] “display the text information and image information together”). Hu is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to sending text and images between smart devices. Hu further teaches a method that “effectively improving the user's efficiency and experience” [0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hu to Wang, as displaying picture information and text information is known in the art to improve user experience.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106649621 A) in view of Bridges et al. (US 20110019089 A1, hereinafter Bridges), and further in view of Parikh et al. (US 20050091585 A1, hereinafter Parikh).
The combination of Wang and Bridges does not explicitly teach the screen display method according to claim 3, wherein the displaying the text information in the low-resolution format comprises: determining whether a seventh buffer memory required for displaying the text information in the low-resolution format is greater than the preset buffer memory. However, Wang does teach an example where when the seventh buffer memory (target memory is 300K) is greater than the preset memory (available memory is 256K), then the display method that occupies the least memory is chosen ([0062] “preset display method where the memory occupied is less than the available memory, that is, the comment information in the comment data is displayed in the form of sound, or the comment information is displayed in the form of text”, where “Specifically, the default display mode is: the display mode that occupies the least memory… the display method that uses the least memory is the text display method” [0063])
The combination of Wang and Bridges also does not explicitly teach if not, controlling the screen to display the text information in the low-resolution format. However, Wang further teaches that if that is not the case (displaying in text takes up 100K and displaying in sound takes up 200K), then the display mode with the higher memory occupation is used ([0063] “among the display modes that occupy less memory than available memory, the display mode that occupies the most memory”, where the “the display method that uses the most memory is… displaying the comment information in sound.” [0063]).
The combination of Wang and Bridges fail to teach if so, controlling the screen to paginate and display the text information in the low- resolution format. However, this is known in the art as taught by Parikh. Parikh is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to using pagination to display text on devices. Parikh further teaches that pagination of text when being displayed is done if there is not enough space for a device to output a certain amount of text ([0052] “The output device is only capable of displaying a fixed amount of output, as indicated by the rectangle 204. The text is therefore paginated into two pages, page 206 and page 208.”). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Parikh to the combination of Wang and Bridges, as pagination is known in the art to be used when a fixed amount of text can be displayed at a time.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106649621A) in view of STMicroelectronics (“Lowering Memory Usage with Partial Framebuffer”).
Wang teaches the screen display method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the preset buffer memory is a buffer memory required for completely displaying one page by the screen in a default format. However, this is known in the art as taught by STMicroelectronics.
STMicroelectronics teaches that it is known the art that the preset buffer memory is a buffer memory required for completely displaying one page by the screen in a default format (“Normally, your frame buffer is a big memory array with enough memory to hold all the pixels available on your display” [section “Full-size Frame Buffer Memory”, paragraph 1]). STMicroelectronics is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to reducing buffer memory usage on displays. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of STMicroelectronics to Wang, as a buffer memory is already known in the art of computer graphics to hold the amount of memory needed to fully display on a page on a screen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 5, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest “wherein the determining whether the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than the preset buffer memory further comprises: determining whether a fourth buffer memory required for displaying the text information in the information to be displayed in the default format is greater than a remaining buffer memory, wherein the remaining buffer memory is a difference between the preset buffer memory and a buffer memory occupied by displaying the picture information in the information to be displayed; if so, determining that the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than the preset buffer memory; correspondingly, the controlling the screen to select a display strategy for reducing buffer memory usage to display the information to be displayed comprises: controlling the screen to display the text information in the information to be displayed in a low-resolution format; if not and if the third buffer memory is greater than the preset buffer memory, determining that the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is greater than the preset buffer memory; correspondingly, the controlling the screen to select a display strategy for reducing buffer memory usage to display the information to be displayed comprises: controlling the screen to display the picture information in the information to be displayed as a text character, and displaying the text information in the information to be displayed in the default format; if not and if the third buffer memory is not greater than the preset buffer memory, determining that the buffer memory required for displaying the information to be displayed is not greater than the preset buffer memory; correspondingly, the controlling the screen to display the information to be displayed comprises: controlling the screen to display the picture information in the information to be displayed in the default format, and displaying the text information in the information to be displayed in the default format.” Therefore, claim 5 is allowable.
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter because it contains substantially similar limitations to claim 5, where the information is displayed by a screen page UI. Therefore, claim 7 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA HA whose telephone number is (571)272-3601. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM, and Fri 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM.
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 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.
/ALICIA HA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611