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 Interpretation Under - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
graphics rendering logic in claims 17-20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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.
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Against Patent US 10,885,696
Claims 1-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 18, 3, 7, 7, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1, 1, 1 respectively or consecutively of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,696.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the corresponding claims of the patent because the subject matters are same and the claims of the instant application are an obvious variant of the Patent. Furthermore, scope of the claims in the instant application are met and encompassed by the corresponding claims of the Patent.
The apparent difference in the claims’ recitation as listed above is simply emanating from the way or choice of wording used in reciting the claims, but the material recited therein is considered substantively equivalent, met and encompassed by the respective claims of the Patent.
Against Patent US 10,565,772
Claims 1-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1, 1, 1 respectively or consecutively of U.S. Patent No. 10,565,772.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the subject matters are same and the claims of the instant application are an obvious variant of the Patent. Furthermore, scope of the claims in the instant application are met and encompassed by the corresponding claims of the Patent.
The apparent difference in the claims’ recitation as listed above is simply emanating from the way or choice of wording used in reciting the claims, but the material recited therein is considered substantively equivalent, met and encompassed by the respective claims of the Patent.
Against Patent US 11,348,302
Claims 1-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1, 1, 1 respectively or consecutively of U.S. Patent No. 11,348,302.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the subject matters are same and the claims of the instant application are an obvious variant of the Patent. Furthermore, scope of the claims in the instant application are met and encompassed by the corresponding claims of the Patent.
The apparent difference in the claims’ recitation as listed above is simply emanating from the way or choice of wording used in reciting the claims, but the material recited therein is considered substantively equivalent, met and encompassed by the respective claims of the Patent.
Against Patent US 11,710, 268
Claims 1-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1, 1, 1 respectively or consecutively of U.S. Patent No. 11,710, 268.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the corresponding claims of the patent because the subject matters are same and the claims of the instant application are an obvious variant of the Patent. Furthermore, scope of the claims in the instant application are met and encompassed by the corresponding claims of the Patent.
The apparent difference in the claims’ recitation as listed above is simply emanating from the way or choice of wording used in reciting the claims, but the material recited therein is considered substantively equivalent, met and encompassed by the respective claims of the Patent.
Against Patent US 12, 148, 084
Claims 1-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 17, 3, 3, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12, 13, 14, 1, 1, 1 respectively or consecutively of U.S. Patent No. 12, 148, 084.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the corresponding claims of the patent because the subject matters are same and the claims of the instant application are an obvious variant of the Patent. Furthermore, scope of the claims in the instant application are met and encompassed by the corresponding claims of the Patent.
The apparent difference in the claims’ recitation as listed above is simply emanating from the way or choice of wording used in reciting the claims, but the material recited therein is considered substantively equivalent, met and encompassed by the respective claims of the Patent.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morphet (US 20140333619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morphet discloses a method of processing graphics data (abstract, claim 9 and dependents), the method comprising rendering geometry, in a graphics processing system (That is, when the system begins to render small parts of the screen (called macro tiles) before the whole image has been stored in the display list memory. The rendering of a macro tile is known as a "partial render" and typically renders only a fraction of the number of objects that will eventually be rendered in that macro tile, ¶0065, Graphics processing system of fig. 1, ¶0002.), using a rendering function which is controlled in dependence on an indication suggestive of a cost of rendering (The parameter management system allows the display list memory associated with the macro tile to be released and used for the storage of further objects. This allows scenes of arbitrary complexity to be rendered in a finite amount of memory space, ¶0065.
The tile accelerator works by calculating the set of tiles in which each object must be rendered, and adding the object to each of those tiles by writing an object pointer into the appropriate list. In a basic system a single copy of the parameter data is written to the display list memory, but in a system using parameter management a copy of the data must be written for each macro tile in which the object is to be rendered. This arrangement is shown in the lower part of FIG. 2, ¶0067.
The enhancement therefore makes it possible to render arbitrarily complex scenes with reasonable efficiency while using only a limited amount of display list memory, ¶0006. This allows scenes of arbitrary complexity to be rendered in a finite amount of memory space, ¶0065).
Regarding claim 2, Morphet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geometry is in a region of a rendering space (Title, claim 1 preamble).
Regarding claim 3, Morphet discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the rendering space is sub-divided into a plurality of regions, wherein each region is a tile (An apparatus and a method for generating 3-dimensional computer graphic images. The image is first sub-divided into a plurality of rectangular areas. A display list memory is loaded with object data for each rectangular area. The image and shading data for each picture element of each rectangular area are derived from the object data in the image synthesis processor and a texturizing and shading processor, Abstract
That is, when the system begins to render small parts of the screen (called macro tiles) before the whole image has been stored in the display list memory. The rendering of a macro tile is known as a "partial render" and typically renders only a fraction of the number of objects that will eventually be rendered in that macro tile, ¶0065
The parameter management system allows the display list memory associated with the macro tile to be released and used for the storage of further objects. This allows scenes of arbitrary complexity to be rendered in a finite amount of memory space, ¶0065.
The tile accelerator works by calculating the set of tiles in which each object must be rendered, and adding the object to each of those tiles by writing an object pointer into the appropriate list. In a basic system a single copy of the parameter data is written to the display list memory, but in a system using parameter management a copy of the data must be written for each macro tile in which the object is to be rendered. This arrangement is shown in the lower part of FIG. 2, ¶0067).
Regarding claim 4, Morphet discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining for the region, what geometry is present in the region (The tile accelerator works by calculating the set of tiles in which each object must be rendered, and adding the object to each of those tiles by writing an object pointer into the appropriate list. In a basic system a single copy of the parameter data is written to the display list memory, but in a system using parameter management a copy of the data must be written for each macro tile in which the object is to be rendered. This arrangement is shown in the lower part of FIG. 2, ¶0067).
Regarding claim 5, Morphet discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
generating a control stream for the region of the rendering space indicating what geometry is present in the region (In FIG. 1, the Tile Accelerator 2 is the part of the system that processes the input data, performs the tiling calculations, and writes object parameter and pointer data to the display list memory 4. The layout of data in the display list memory is as shown in FIG. 2, ¶0004
Culling in the Tile Accelerator operates when parameter management is active. That is, when the system begins to render small parts of the screen (called macro tiles) before the whole image has been stored in the display list memory. The rendering of a macro tile is known as a "partial render" and typically renders only a fraction of the number of objects that will eventually be rendered in that macro tile. The parameter management system allows the display list memory associated with the macro tile to be released and used for the storage of further objects. This allows scenes of arbitrary complexity to be rendered in a finite amount of memory space, ¶0065
The tile accelerator works by calculating the set of tiles in which each object must be rendered, and adding the object to each of those tiles by writing an object pointer into the appropriate list. In a basic system a single copy of the parameter data is written to the display list memory, but in a system using parameter management a copy of the data must be written for each macro tile in which the object is to be rendered. This arrangement is shown in the lower part of FIG. 2, ¶0067); and
identifying what geometry is present in the region using the control stream
for the region (ibid, ¶0004, 0065-0067);
wherein the cost indication is included in the control stream for the region (The enhancement therefore makes it possible to render arbitrarily complex scenes with reasonable efficiency while using only a limited amount of display list memory, ¶0006
The tile accelerator works by calculating the set of tiles in which each object must be rendered, and adding the object to each of those tiles by writing an object pointer into the appropriate list, ¶0065).
Regarding claim 11, Morphet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rendering function is controlled by controlling one or more rendering operations applied to geometry at sample positions within the rendering space (The image and shading data for each picture element of each rectangular area are derived from the object data in the image synthesis processor and a texturizing and shading processor. A depth range generator derives a depth range for each rectangular area from the object data as the imaging and shading data is derived, Abstract. Also see ¶0065-0072), wherein said controlling one or more rendering operations comprises one or more of:
controlling filtering operations used for processing geometry;
controlling ray tracing parameters including one or more of a number of ray
bounces to be processed and a clipping distance for rays, when the rendering comprises applying a ray tracing technique; and
controlling shading effects which are applied to geometry (ibid, The image and shading data for each picture element of each rectangular area are derived from the object data in the image synthesis processor and a texturizing and shading processor. A depth range generator derives a depth range for each rectangular area from the object data as the imaging and shading data is derived, Abstract. Also see ¶0065-0072).
Regarding claim 12, Morphet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rendering function is controlled in order to satisfy one or more rendering constraints (rendering function is controlled in order to satisfy one or more rendering constraints according to parameters and conditions/constraints set forth in tables 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 13, Morphet discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more rendering constraints include one or more of:
a constraint on the timing at which respective portions of an image are rendered; and
a constraint on the timing at which an image is rendered (The effect is that of a delay, between determining that an object can be culled, and the time when that object would actually have been rendered in the ISP. Any change in the state of the ISP between the culling test and the actual rendering time could cause the culled object to become visible again, and thus cause an error in the rendered image, ¶0058).
Regarding claim 16, Morphet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication is a cost indication suggestive of a cost of rendering a region of a rendering space (abstract, ¶0065-0072).
Regarding claim(s) 17, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the claim(s) 1 as described above (rendering logic is understood implemented in graphics renderer claim 1, system of fig. 1 except ISP 6+8).
Regarding claim 18, Morphet discloses the graphics rendering logic of claim 17, further configured to output rendered image values for storing in memory (Abstract, ¶0065-0069; ).
Regarding claim 19, Morphet discloses a graphics processing unit (fig. 4) comprising the rendering logic of claim 17 (rendering logic is understood implemented in graphics renderer claim 1, system of fig. 1 except ISP 6+8) and a frame buffer configured to store image values rendered by the rendering logic for outputting to a display (When all the objects in the tile have been processed, the ISP 6 sends the visible surface information to the Texturing and Shading Processor (TSP) 10 where it is textured and shaded before being sent to a frame buffer for display, ¶0005).
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 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 of this title, 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) 6, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morphet in view of Ling (US 20170200253 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Morphet discloses the method of claim 1, except, further comprising controlling the rendering function by controlling, in dependence on the indication, a number of samples per pixel that are processed during rendering.
However, Ling discloses systems and methods for improving rendering performance of graphics processors (Abstract), wherein the graphics processor 100 may also have the option to increase the number of samples per pixel when appropriate. For example, suppose the graphics processor 100 continues to use the framebuffer set 104 to render the frames, and further suppose that the frames become less complex to render (e.g., with reduced depth-complexity), down to a point where a frame 204 took less time to render than a configurable lower threshold (may be system-determined or user-defined). The graphics processor 100 may then decide to increase the number of samples per pixel starting at a subsequent frame 206. In this manner, the graphics processor 100 may eventually work back to using the default framebuffer set 102 with the most samples per pixel if the rendering performance allows for it to happen (¶0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Morphet with the teaching of Ling of improving rendering performance of graphics processors by increasing the number of samples per pixel during rendering to reduce complexity in the tiles of Morphet, to obtain, controlling the rendering function by controlling, in dependence on the indication, a number of samples per pixel that are processed during rendering, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious (see MPEP §2143.I).
Regarding claim 20, Morphet discloses see substantively similar claim 1 rejection above).
Morphet is not found discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform method steps described above.
However, Ling discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform a specified method step (abstract, ¶0003, 0004, ¶0041, claim 1 and dependents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement the computing system of Morphet using the teaching of Ling, to obtain, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform a specified method step, because. combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious (see MPEP §2143.I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 14-15 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:
Regarding claim 7, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
wherein the geometry comprises primitives which lie in a region of a rendering space and the method further comprising determining an edge indication for the region which provides an indication of the extent to which primitive edges are included in the region, and wherein the number of samples per pixel that are processed during rendering for the region is controlled in dependence on the determined edge indication for the region.
Regarding claim 8, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
wherein, if the number of samples per pixel is controlled to be fewer than one sample per pixel then for some pixels a sample is not rendered, and further comprising determining values for unrendered pixels by combining nearby rendered pixel values.
Regarding claim 10, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
wherein the rendering function is controlled by controlling a
number of samples per pixel that are processed in a hidden surface removal operation and independently controlling a number of samples per pixel processed in a texturing/shading operation.
Regarding claim 14, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
wherein the one or more rendering constraints include a target frame rate at which images are rendered, and wherein the rendering function is controlled in dependence on the indication such that the images are rendered at a rate that satisfies the target frame rate.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the geometry is in a rendering space that is sub-divided into a plurality of regions, the one or more rendering constraints include a timing constraint for rendering a line of regions, and wherein the rendering function is controlled in dependence on the indication such that lines of regions are rendered at a rate that satisfies the timing constraint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aymeric et al. (US 20150084794 );
Chirde (US 20140184637)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NURUN FLORA whose telephone number is (571)272-5742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am -5:00 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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571) 272-3022. 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.
/NURUN FLORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights