DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
2. The preliminary amendment to claims filed on 11/4/2024 is accepted and examined below.
3. Claims 1-16 and 24-27 are pending in the present application.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-16 and 24-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 and 22-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,642 B2 (patent 642). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are similar.
6. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of the present application and of patent 642.
Claims of present application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Claims of patent 642
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
24
25
26
27
24
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
22
23
24
7. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claim 1 of patent 642.
Claim 1 of present application
Claims 1 of patent 642
A system, comprising:
a computing device operable to render video content for display on a display device and to periodically refresh that display device, the video content including at least one application window;
A system, comprising:
a computing device operable to render video content for display on a display device and to periodically refresh that display device, the video content including at least one application window;
a desktop compositor operable
to wake in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to, if rendered video content is sensed,
a desktop compositor operable to wake and
a high resolution timer operable to cause the desktop compositor to wake in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to execute the commands if rendered video content is sensed.
execute commands to compose video frames that are composited surfaces that include the at least one application window and to initiate a buffer flip to deliver the videoframes to the display device.
and execute commands to compose video frames that are composited surfaces that include the at least one application window and to initiate a buffer flip to deliver the video frames to the display device;
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-16 and 24-27 are allowed over cited references.
9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 recites the limitation a desktop compositor operable to wake in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to, if rendered video content is sensed, execute commands to compose video frames which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
10. The present application is a continuation of parent application 15/338,492 (now patent 12,079,642 B2). Regarding the parent application, on 12/13/2023 the Patent Board Decision (Appeal 2022-004641) issued a ruling indicating that none of the cited references used in the appeal taught the limitation waking in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to execute the commands is rendered video content is sensed. The limitation waking in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to execute the commands is rendered video content is sensed cited in that Patent Board Decision is very similar to a desktop compositor operable to wake in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to, if rendered video content is sensed, execute commands to compose video frames.
11. Another close art is Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0141642 A1). While Wu discloses a desktop compositor displaying video frames based on refresh rates, Wu is silent with respect to a desktop compositor operable to wake in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to, if rendered video content is sensed, execute commands to compose video frames.
12. Another close art is Hanggie et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0088447 A1). Hanggie disclsoes desktop compositor and refresh rates but also fails to disclose a desktop compositor operable to wake in multiple instances between consecutive display refreshes to, if rendered video content is sensed, execute commands to compose video frames.
13. Claims 9 and 24 are similar to claim 1 and are allowed over cited references for the same reason claim 1 is allowed over cited references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
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 5712727794. 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.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights