CTNF 18/896,952 CTNF 80468 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishna Rao et al. (hereinafter Rao – US Doc. No. 20230336799) in view of Vasquez et al. (hereinafter Vasquez – US Doc. No. 20070002168) . Regarding claim 1, Rao discloses a device comprising a processor connected to storage (see Figure 8, elements 804 and 806), the processor configured to: receive a trigger to switch a video data stream of frames between a first resolution and frame rate mode and a second resolution and frame rate mode (Figure 1, element 138; see also paragraph 0029 – note that the condition monitor 138 monitors multiple aspects of the video stream and triggers a resolution change as necessary to accommodate target scaling and resolution); and switch, in response to the trigger, the video data stream between the first resolution and frame rate mode and the second resolution and frame rate mode (as shown in Figure 6; see also Figure 1, element 140; see also paragraph 0030 – note that the scaling engine receives stream target data from the condition monitor 138 and switches the resolution of the video stream), wherein a total horizontal pixel width of each frame of the video data stream in the first resolution and frame rate mode and of each frame of the video data stream in the second resolution and frame rate mode are the same (as shown in Figure 3; see also paragraph 0018 – note that with the padding, the total horizontal pixel width is the same between both streams). Although Rao implies that the pixel clock remains the same between the two video streams by allowing for the horizontal and vertical pixel width being the same, Rao does not specifically disclose that the pixel clock rate for each stream is the same. Vasquez discloses a technique for switching between video modes in response to a trigger (see paragraphs 0025-0026 – note that the media processing node switches resolution based on power reduction [read: trigger]) wherein a pixel clock rate of the video data stream in the first resolution and frame rate mode and the video data stream in the second resolution and frame rate mode are the same (see Figure 5, element 504; see also paragraph 0046 – note that the pixel clock remains the same between display modes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video data stream switching as disclosed by Rao with the well-known method of providing a constant pixel clock rate for display stream mode switching as disclosed by Vasquez, the motivation being to reduce potential disruptions to the display [read: reduce/eliminate latency]. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Vasquez further discloses that the second resolution and frame rate mode has a refresh rate that is twice that of the first resolution and frame rate mode (see paragraphs 0023-0024 – note the 60fps vs 30fps which is half). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. The combination of Rao and Vasquez discloses the claimed invention except for the first resolution and frame rate mode has an active horizontal pixel width that is twice that of the second resolution and frame rate mode, wherein the first resolution and frame rate mode has an active vertical pixel height that is twice that of the second resolution and frame rate mode. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use video streams of any size with the frame padding techniques as disclosed by Rao wherein the horizontal and/or vertical frames can be padded to be the same (see paragraph 0018) since the applicant has not disclosed that having the first resolution and frame rate mode has an active horizontal pixel width that is twice that of the second resolution and frame rate mode, wherein the first resolution and frame rate mode has an active vertical pixel height that is twice that of the second resolution and frame rate mode solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any frame dimensions which are then padded with blanking areas as disclosed by Rao such that all the frame dimensions are the same. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. The combination of Rao and Vasquez discloses the claimed invention except for the total horizontal pixel width of the video data stream in the first resolution and frame rate mode comprises a first active horizontal pixel width and a first horizontal blank pixel width, wherein the total horizontal pixel width of the video data stream in the second resolution and frame rate mode comprises a second active horizontal pixel width that is half the first horizontal blank pixel width and a second horizontal blank pixel width that is greater than the first horizontal blank pixel width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use video streams of any size with the frame padding techniques as disclosed by Rao wherein the horizontal and/or vertical frames can be padded to be the same (see paragraph 0018) since the applicant has not disclosed that having the total horizontal pixel width of the video data stream in the first resolution and frame rate mode comprises a first active horizontal pixel width and a first horizontal blank pixel width, wherein the total horizontal pixel width of the video data stream in the second resolution and frame rate mode comprises a second active horizontal pixel width that is half the first horizontal blank pixel width and a second horizontal blank pixel width that is greater than the first horizontal blank pixel width solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any frame dimensions which are then padded with blanking areas as disclosed by Rao such that all the frame dimensions are the same. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed in the claim 4 rejection above. The combination of Rao and Vasquez discloses the claimed invention except for the first active horizontal pixel width is 3840 pixels and the first horizontal blank pixel width is 80 pixels, wherein the second active horizontal pixel width is 1920 pixels and the first horizontal blank pixel width is 2000 pixels. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use video streams of any size with the frame padding techniques as disclosed by Rao wherein the horizontal and/or vertical frames can be padded to be the same (see paragraph 0018) since the applicant has not disclosed that the first active horizontal pixel width is 3840 pixels and the first horizontal blank pixel width is 80 pixels, wherein the second active horizontal pixel width is 1920 pixels and the first horizontal blank pixel width is 2000 pixels solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any frame dimensions which are then padded with blanking areas as disclosed by Rao such that all the frame dimensions are the same. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. The combination of Rao and Vasquez discloses the claimed invention except for the first resolution and frame rate mode comprises 4K resolution at a refresh rate of 240 Hz, wherein the second resolution and frame rate mode comprises 1080p resolution at a refresh rate of 480 Hz. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use video streams of any size with the frame padding techniques as disclosed by Rao wherein the horizontal and/or vertical frames can be padded to be the same (see paragraph 0018) since the applicant has not disclosed that the first resolution and frame rate mode comprises 4K resolution at a refresh rate of 240 Hz, wherein the second resolution and frame rate mode comprises 1080p resolution at a refresh rate of 480 Hz solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any frame dimensions which are then padded with blanking areas as disclosed by Rao such that all the frame dimensions are the same. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Neither Rao nor Vasquez disclose a resynchronization of the data stream. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose the processor is configured to switch the video data stream between the first resolution and frame rate mode and the second resolution and frame rate mode without triggering a resynchronization to the video data stream. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. The combination of Rao and Vasquez discloses the claimed invention except for the first resolution and frame rate mode has a vertical pixel width that is twice that of the second resolution and frame rate mode, wherein the second resolution and frame rate mode has an refresh rate that is twice that of the first resolution and frame rate mode. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use video streams of any size with the frame padding techniques as disclosed by Rao wherein the horizontal and/or vertical frames can be padded to be the same (see paragraph 0018) since the applicant has not disclosed that the first resolution and frame rate mode has a vertical pixel width that is twice that of the second resolution and frame rate mode, wherein the second resolution and frame rate mode has an refresh rate that is twice that of the first resolution and frame rate mode solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any frame dimensions which are then padded with blanking areas as disclosed by Rao such that all the frame dimensions are the same. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Rao further discloses that the processor is configured to receive the trigger to change between the first resolution and frame rate mode and the second resolution and frame rate mode from a runtime operating system or a gaming engine (see paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0039). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Rao further discloses that the processor is configured to transmit the video data stream to a video display device (see Figure 1 – note that the processor is located in server 104 [see also Figure 8] and is then transmitted to a display device 112 which includes a display 110). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Rao further discloses that the trigger comprises a change in content of the video data stream from a static scene to a dynamic scene (see paragraph 0081). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rao and Vasquez disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Rao further discloses that the trigger comprises a change in a user preference indicating a resolution or a refresh rate of the video data stream (see paragraph 0081). Claims 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 have limitations similar to claims 1, 1, 9, 2, 7/8, and 4 (respectively) those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above. Claim 13, however, also recites a video display (see Rao – Figure 1, element 110). Claims 19 and 20 have limitations similar to the above rejections of claims 1 and 2 (respectively), and are met by the references as discussed above. Claim 19, however, also recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Rao – paragraph 0074). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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. /ADAM R. GIESY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 2 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 3 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 4 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 5 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 6 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 7 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 8 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 9 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 18/896,952 Page 10 Art Unit: 2622
Prosecution Insights