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
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(s) 13-18, 22, 24-27, 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spence et al. (US Patent Application 20170352322) in view of Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150015589).
In regards to claim 13, Spence teaches a computer implemented method [e.g. method, 0016, also see 0007] comprising:
receiving, from an application program running [e.g. 3D application, 0060] on a processing apparatus [Fig. 1; e.g. display system, 0060], an operation condition [e.g. configuration (control plane) data for a frame can include one or more hints, 0046] for a drawing process [e.g. The 3D application can schedule a frame to be rendered by the graphics-subsystem, 0060] in drawing a first image frame [e.g. generate a sequence of animated frames, 0047], wherein the application program is configured to determine contents of the first image frame [e.g. Client applications of the window server provide data that describes the content to be displayed on a display device, 0047];
executing the drawing process of the first image frame based on the operation condition received from the application program [e.g. the graphics-subsystem renders the frame based on the configuration data received from the 3D application, 0060, also see 0046, 0047];
for a second image frame [e.g. second frame, 0018] subsequent to the first image frame [e.g. sequence of frames includes second frame subsequent to the first frame, 0108-0110, also see 0018],
measuring a drawing time period [e.g. Frame stats 510 for Frame 1 can be recorded as 20 ms arrival 512, 12 ms requested presentation 514 time, 24 ms on-glass 516 times, and a −12 ms delta, 0079, 0099] took for executing the drawing process of the first image frame [e.g. for rendering the frame 1, 0060, also see 0046, 0047],
determining a target drawing time period [e.g. target presentation time, 0007] for the second image frame [e.g. Each frame is associated with a specified presentation time that is honored by the display system, 0043] based on a presence or an absence of receiving a user input [e.g. The animation frame rate determined based on a parameter associated with the input. For a fast initial input, such as a fast touch or scroll gesture, the application can generate a sequence of frames having a high initial animation frame rate 604 (e.g., frame rate 608A, frame rate 608B, frame rate 608C). The animation frame rate 604 can be slowed over time (e.g., frame rate 608D, frame rate 608E, frame rate 608F), for example in response to a fade of the initial input, which can reduce the amount of power consumed by the display system due to the reduction in the rate at which frames are generated and displayed (emphasis added), 0017, 0084] during an execution of the application program [e.g. while using the client application, 0082, also see 0047], and
changing the operation condition for a drawing process of the second image frame [e.g. If applications, frameworks, or other display clients appear to be struggling to achieve or maintain target animation rate targets, then the performance controller may choose to increase the system performance state by adjusting clock frequency or voltage associated with the graphics subsystem, 0048, 0054] based on a comparison [e.g. based on the delta statistic which is the difference between the requested presentation time and the on-glass time, which indicates the difference between when the frame is displayed and when the frame was requested to be displayed, 0073].
Spence does not explicitly teach
changing the operation condition for a drawing process of the second image frame based on a comparison between the measured drawing time period and the target drawing time period (emphasis added).
However, Chung teaches
changing the operation condition [e.g. adjusting an operating frequency of the GPU based on the loss frame number, 0022] for a drawing process of the second image frame [e.g. the operating frequency may be applied to a current time period or a next time period such that a number of frames processed in a current time period approaches the target frame number, 0016-0017] based on a comparison between the measured drawing time period and the target drawing time period [e.g. A loss frame number of the previous time period is calculated based on the target frame number and the processed frame number. A processed frame number processed by the GPU is determined in a previous time period. A target frame number which the GPU is required to process is determined in a time period, 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spence’s method with the features of
changing the operation condition for a drawing process of the second image frame based on a comparison between the measured drawing time period and the target drawing time period
in the same conventional manner as taught by Chung because Chung provides a method for dynamically controlling operating voltage and frequency of a graphic processing unit (GPU) by analyzing frames per second (FPS) which can be processed by the GPU in real time so that the GPU can achieve a constant target FPS [0012].
In regards to claim 14, Spence teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising transmitting to a display a drawn frame image [e.g. display data on a display device, 0007] generated by the executing of the drawing process of the first image frame [e.g. The display data corresponds to one or more frames generated by the one or more graphics processors. The display device explicitly refreshes in response to the first display event. The one or more display events including a first display event associated with a first frame, 0007, 0043, 0110].
In regards to claim 15, Spence teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising executing the drawing process of the second image frame based on the changed operation condition [e.g. Subsequent frames (e.g., Frame i+1) can be generated and displayed based on a pre-determined presentation timing. If applications, frameworks, or other display clients appear to be struggling to achieve or maintain target animation rate targets, then the performance controller may choose to increase the system performance state by adjusting clock frequency or voltage associated with the graphics subsystem, 0067, also see 0048, 0054].
In regards to claim 16, Spence teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the operation condition received from the application program comprises a time period to execute the drawing process of the first image frame [e.g. the configuration data includes frame stats for Frame 1 including a 24 ms on-glass time, where the one-glass time for a frame is the time in which the frame is actually displayed on a display device, 0045-0046, 0072, 0079, 0099].
In regards to claim 17, Spence teaches the method of claim 16, wherein determining the target drawing time period [see rejection of claim 13 above] comprises:
decreasing the time period in response to determining that the user input has been received, and increasing the time period in response to determining that the user input has not been received for a specific time period [e.g. The animation frame rate determined based on a parameter associated with the input. For a fast initial input, such as a fast touch or scroll gesture, the application can generate a sequence of frames having a high initial animation frame rate 604 (e.g., frame rate 608A, frame rate 608B, frame rate 608C). The animation frame rate 604 can be slowed over time (e.g., frame rate 608D, frame rate 608E, frame rate 608F), for example in response to a fade of the initial input, which can reduce the amount of power consumed by the display system due to the reduction in the rate at which frames are generated and displayed. In other words, a higher animation frame rate results in a decreased target time period per frame, while a reduced animation frame rate results in an increased target time period per frame, 0017, 0084]; and
setting the time period as the target drawing time period [e.g. Based on the variable animation frame rate of the content, the display device can have a variable refresh rate that is based on the animation frame rate provided by the application. The one or more frames of data are presented to the variable refresh rate display device for display at a target presentation time, the target presentation time derived from the requested presentation time, 0082, also see 0009].
In regards to claim 18, Spence teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the target drawing time period is determined also based on a type of the application program [e.g. A display engine can be configured to refresh a display device at an appropriate time to match the animation rate of an incoming frame. For example, a 3D game can be configured to generate a frame at logical time 0, which represents a current time, or a frame for immediate display. In another example, an e-mail application can generate a sequence of successive frames at a variable animation frame rate 604 based on the velocity 606 or intensity of the initial scrolling input, 0043, 0083].
In regards to claim 22, Spence teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the target drawing time period is determined also based on a content of the user input [e.g. operations comprising receiving an input to interact with an image presented via a display device; generating a sequence of frames in response to the input, the sequence of frames having an animation frame rate independent of a current refresh rate of the display device, the animation frame rate determined based on a parameter associated with the input (emphasis added), 0017].
In regards to claim 24, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 13, but in the form of an information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage device coupled to the one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 13. Furthermore, Spence teaches an information processing apparatus [Fig. 1; e.g. display system, 0060] comprising: one or more processors [e.g. one or more processors, 0008]; and a computer-readable storage device [e.g. non-transitory machine-readable medium, 0008] coupled to the one or more processors and having instructions [e.g. instructions, 0008] stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 13. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 13 is applied.
In regards to claim 25, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 14. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 14 is applied.
In regards to claim 26, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 16. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 16 is applied.
In regards to claim 27, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 17. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 17 is applied.
In regards to claim 29, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 22 is applied.
In regards to claim 30, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 13, but in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing the method of claim 13. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 13 is applied.
In regards to claim 31, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 17. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 17 is applied.
In regards to claim 32, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 22 is applied.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spence et al. (US Patent Application 20170352322) in view of Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150015589) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Glen (U.S. Patent Application 20160196801).
In regards to claim 23, Spence as modified by Chung does not explicitly teach the method of claim 22, wherein the content of the user input includes a game move for playing a game ran by the application program.
However, Glen teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the content of the user input [e.g. input, 0012] includes a game move [e.g. character movement, 0012] for playing a game [e.g. game, 0012] ran by the application program [e.g. video gaming system, 0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Spence’s method and the teachings of Chung with the features of wherein the content of the user input includes a game move for playing a game ran by the application program in the same conventional manner as taught by Glen because user inputs such as character movements are well known and commonly used in the art of video gaming systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, 21, 28 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.
In regards to claim 19, Spence teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the application program is a gaming program [e.g. 3D game, 0043].
However, Spence as modified by Chung fails to teach or suggest the type of the application program is based on a genre of a game ran by the application program.
In regards to claim 20, Spence as modified by Chung fails to teach or suggest the method of claim 13, wherein the target drawing time period is determined also based on setting contents designated in advance by a user.
In regards to claim 21, Spence as modified by Chung fails to teach or suggest the method of claim 13, wherein the target drawing time period is determined based the absence of receiving the user input for a specific time period.
In regards to claim 28, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 19. Therefore, the claim is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 19 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM 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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights