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 § 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, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0043223 A1 to Leiby et al. (Leiby).
As to claim 1, Leiby discloses an electronic device (102) (Fig, 1, Par. 21) comprising: a display panel (Fig. 1, Pars. 21-22, e.g. HMD 100 may include a single display panel, or more than two display panels), configured to update displayed images at a refresh rate (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18); and a controller (GPU), coupled to the display panel (Fig. 1, Par. 29); wherein the controller (GPU) is configured to: receive a target frame rate from a first application (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18, see also Par. 29); determine a frame rate (e.g. updated/adjusted frame rate) according to the refresh rate (e.g. refresh rate of display) and the target frame rate (e.g. target frame rate of application)(Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18, see also Par. 29), wherein the frame rate (e.g. updated/adjusted frame rate) is a factor of the refresh rate (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18, see also Par. 29); and control the first application to draw images at the frame rate (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18, see also Par. 29).
As to claim 10, Leiby teaches a method of the electronic device of claim 1 above. The limitation of claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 1.
As to claim 8, Leiby discloses when the target frame rate is lower than the refresh rate and the target frame rate is a factor of the refresh rate (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18; i.e. a compositor may throttle the application's frame rate to match the refresh rate of the HMD (e.g., 90 Hz)), the controller is further configured to: determine that the frame rate is the target frame rate (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18).
As to claim 17, Leiby teaches a method of the electronic device of claim 8 above. The limitation of claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0043223 A1 to Leiby et al. (Leiby) and US 2014/0368519 A1 to Wood et al. (Wood).
As to claim 4, Leiby does not expressly disclose when the target frame rate is higher than the refresh rate, the controller is further configured to determine that the frame rate is the refresh rate.
Wood discloses when the target frame rate is higher than the refresh rate, the controller is further configured to determine that the frame rate is the refresh rate (Par. 7 and 13, see also Par. 27, if the application is not approved to use the custom refresh rate, then frames presented by the application are displayed at the standard refresh rate notwithstanding whether the frames are presented using the custom refresh rate; e.g. custom refresh rate for paint application 120Hz and refresh display rate 60Hz).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leiby with the teaching of Wood to provide a seamless transition between modes in response to events occurring on the computer thereby provide an improved display device as suggested by Wood (Par. 8).
As to claim 13, Leiby in view of Wood teaches a method of the electronic device of claim 4 above. The limitation of claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 4.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0043223 A1 to Leiby et al. (Leiby) and US 2007/0206018 A1 to Bajic et al. (Bajic).
As to claim 9, Leiby does not expressly disclose when remaining battery power of the electronic device is lower than a first threshold or temperature of the electronic device is higher than a second threshold, the controller is further configured to control the first application to lower its frame rate.
Bajic discloses when remaining battery power of the electronic device is lower than a first threshold, the controller is further configured to control the first application to lower its frame rate (Pars. 11, 59).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leiby with the teaching of Bajic to improve power management as suggested by Bajic (Par. 7).
As to claim 18, Leiby in view of Bajic teaches a method of the electronic device of claim 9 above. The limitation of claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11-12, and 14-16 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 allowable subject matter is: the controller is further configured to inform the first application that a control parameter is equal to N; wherein the first application is configured to draw an image every N times the first application receives the vsync signal; wherein N is the refresh rate divided by the frame rate of claims 2 and 11, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable subject matter is: the controller is further configured to generate a control signal every N times the vsync signal is generated, wherein N is the refresh rate divided by the frame rate; wherein the first application is configured to draw an image every time the first application receives the control signal of claims 3 and 12, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable subject matter is: when the target frame rate is lower than the refresh rate and the target frame rate is not a factor of the refresh rate, and when a first window of the first application displayed on the display panel is smaller than a second window of a second application displayed on the display panel, the controller is further configured to determine that the frame rate is a number that is lower than the target frame rate and is a factor of the refresh rate of claims 5 and 14, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable subject matter is: when the target frame rate is lower than the refresh rate and the target frame rate is not a factor of the refresh rate, and when a first window of the first application displayed on the display panel is larger than a second window of a second application displayed on the display panel, the controller is further configured to determine that the frame rate is the target frame rate and to control the display panel to adjust the refresh rate to the target frame rate. of claims 7 and 16, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-13 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Leiby does not teach “receive a target frame rate from a first application” since “the compositor doesn't receive target frame rate from the application”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Leiby teaches the application frame rate (target frame rate) is received by the compositor from a first application which the compositor throttles the received application frame rate (target frame rate) to match refresh rate (Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18, see also Par. 29). In other words, the frame rate of the first application to be throttle is the target rate of the first application.
On pages 13-14 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Leiby does not teach “determine a frame rate according to the refresh rate and the target frame rate” since “the throttle level in Leiby is determined based on the number of over-presented frames out of a past M rendered frames and the refresh rate of the HMD” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Leiby teaches that by throttling the received application frame rate (target frame rate) to match the refresh rate, a frame rate which is a factor of refresh rate can be determine (e.g. determine the frame rate according to the refresh rate and the target rate)(Fig. 1, Pars. 15, 18, see also Par. 29).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 4:00PM, 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights