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.
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: “communication assembly configured to establish” in claim 7 and “communication module configured to establish” in claim 13.
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.
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, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US 20240005891 A1, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a control method (title, abstract, ¶0002, ¶0005-0007, fig. 5 … etc.) comprising:
obtaining a second parameter through a transmission channel (s102, fig. 5, 621 in fig. 6d, ¶0176-0185, ¶0191-0192, ¶0243, ¶0250-0251, ¶0270), the transmission channel being a channel established with a second device (ibid, figs. 5, 6c-6d, 10), the second parameter representing a color mode of the second device (After determining the first color gamut, the large-screen device 200 sends the first color gamut to the electronic device 100, ¶0191), the color mode at least indicating a foreground color and a background color of an application, the foreground color contrasting the background color (negotiated color gamut understood meets the limitation, since both background and foreground of the running application, e.g., gallery and/or instant messaging, are supported under the selected color mode [or selected color gamut]. Therefore, selected color gamut indicates a foreground color and a background color of an application. Furthermore, the foreground color is understood contrasting the background color is an inherent feature, and is evident from example figs. 7-10);
obtaining a first application, the first application belonging to a first device (fig. 6F, top box, fig. 7a, fig. 8b-8d);
rendering a display content of the first application in a running status, based on the color mode represented by the second parameter (s103-s105, fig. 5), the rendered display content of the first application being used to be displayed on the second device (figs. 9, 10);
sending the display content through the transmission channel to the second device (s105, fig. 5), so that a visual effect of the display content on the second device is consistent with a visual effect of a display content of a second application displayed on the second device, the second application belonging to the second device (¶191-0200
Compared with FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B, the color gamut of the image resource displayed by the electronic device 100 shown in FIG. 9A is P3, and a color gamut of the image resource 911 displayed by the large-screen device 200 shown in FIG. 9B is P3. It can be learned that according to the mirroring method provided in this embodiment of this application, a loss of color information in the mirroring process may be reduced, and consistency of display effect of image resources on an electronic device end and a large-screen device end may be improved, ¶0256).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the color mode represented by the second parameter includes:
obtaining a first parameter, the first parameter used to represent the color mode of the first device (In an M3 reply packet, the electronic device 100 includes, in the extended colormode field, a color gamut capability set supported by the electronic device 100, for example, sRGB and P3, ¶0192);
in response to the color mode represented by a value of the first parameter matching the color mode represented by a value of the second parameter, rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the first color mode represented by the first parameter (The large-screen device 200 obtains an intersection set between a color gamut capability set supported by the large-screen device 200, for example, sRGB, P3, Adobe RGB, and prophoto RGB, and the color gamut capability set supported by the electronic device 100; and selects, as the first color gamut, a color gamut with a widest coloring range from the intersection set, ¶0192); and
in response to the color mode represented by the value of the first parameter not matching the color mode represented by the value of the second parameter, rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the second color mode represented by the first parameter (ibid, he large-screen device 200 obtains an intersection set between a color gamut capability set supported by the large-screen device 200, for example, sRGB, P3, Adobe RGB, and prophoto RGB, and the color gamut capability set supported by the electronic device 100; and selects, as the first color gamut, a color gamut with a widest coloring range from the intersection set. After determining the first color gamut, the large-screen device 200 sends or notifies the first color gamut to the electronic device 100, ¶0192).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses an electronic device comprising:
a communication assembly configured to establish a transmission channel with a second device (See fig. 2 shows a mirroring system 10 that includes an electronic device 100 and a large-screen device 200, title, abstract, ¶0002, ¶0005-0007, fig. 5 … etc.);
one or more processors (¶0080; unit 110 in fig. 3A) configured to:
obtain a second parameter through the transmission channel, the transmission channel being a channel established with the second device through the communication module, the second parameter representing a color mode of the second device, the color mode at least indicating a foreground color and a background color of an application, the foreground color contrasting the background color; obtain a first application, the first application belonging to a first device; render a display content of the first application in a running status, based on the color mode represented by the second parameter, the display content of the first application being used to be displayed on the second device; send the display content through the transmission channel to the second device, so that a visual effect of the display content on the second device is consistent with a visual effect of a display content of a second application displayed on the second device, the second application belonging to the second device (Regarding this part of the claim, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the independent claim 1discussed above.).
Regarding claim 10, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the claim 4 discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses a control apparatus comprising: a communication module configured to establish a transmission channel with a second device (See fig. 2 shows a mirroring system 10 that includes an electronic device 100 and a large-screen device 200, title, abstract, ¶0002, ¶0005-0007, fig. 5 … etc.);
one or more processors (¶0080; unit 110 in fig. 3A) configured to:
obtain a second parameter through the transmission channel, the transmission channel being a channel established with the second device through the communication module, the second parameter representing a color mode of the second device, the color mode at least indicating a foreground color and a background color of an application, the foreground color contrasting the background color; obtain a first application, the first application belonging to a first device; render a display content of the first application in a running status, based on the color mode represented by the second parameter, the display content of the first application being used to be displayed on the second device; send the display content through the transmission channel to the second device, so that a visual effect of the display content on the second device is consistent with a visual effect of a display content of a second application displayed on the second device, the second application belonging to the second device (Regarding this part of the claim, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the independent claim 1discussed above).
Regarding claim 16, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the claim 4 discussed above.
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) 2-3, 8-9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Stahl et al. (US 9207903 B2; hereinafter Stahl).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
configuring the second parameter based on a virtual screen (911, fig. 9b, ¶0255-0256).
Although likely implicit, Xu is not found disclosing expressly the limitation of, the virtual screen being established based on a dimension of a screen of the second device and a target display area.
Nevertheless, in ¶0194, Xu discloses, in some embodiments, the electronic device 100 may further negotiate more information with the large-screen device 200 over the communication connection to the large-screen device 200, for example, a resolution, an encoding/decoding format, a frame rate, and a bit rate that are used during mirroring -
Indicating resolution of the either display is potentially be part of the negotiation between the electronic device 100 and large-screen device 200 to display the virtual screen 911, in a specific location within the large-screen 200.
Stahl however discloses, A computing system that supports the use of multiple displays in display mirroring mode and extended display mode may automatically determine a display mode in which to configure the system based on various characteristics of the displays in the system (abstract), wherein resolution, color profile and aspect ratio of either screen are analyzed to determine where to mirror the virtual screen (figs. 6-7).
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 Xu with the teaching of Stahl of determining the virtual screen location based on mutual resolution and aspect ratio of the native and external devices, to obtain, the virtual screen being established based on a dimension of a screen of the second device and a target display area, 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 3, Xu in view of Stahl discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the second parameter includes: rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the virtual screen (Xu: figs. 7-10, Stahl: figs. 6-7).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14-15, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the claims 2-3 respectively as discussed above.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Xu et al. (WO 2024027718 A1; hereinafter Xu’718. English translation provided, and citations provided from the translation.).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses the method according to claim 1, except, further comprising: periodically obtaining the second parameter if the transmission channel exists.
However, Xu’718 discloses screen mirroring method (Abstract), wherein in S105, the first device may also periodically obtain the second screen projection parameters at a certain frequency to realize real-time adjustment of the code rate of each application (page 26, 2nd to last ¶).
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 Xu, with the teaching of Xu’718 to implement the communication details between the electronic device 100 and external display 200, so that the parameters are periodically exchanged therebetween, to obtain, periodically obtaining the second parameter if the transmission channel exists, because, such modification ensures real-time adjustment for consistency of the session in case of any changes in the environment of the source or sink side changes. Furthermore, such modification can be achieved by, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious (see MPEP §2143.I).
Regarding claims 12, 18, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the claim 6 as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, 17 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 5, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
the method according to claim 4, wherein in response to the color mode represented by the value of the first parameter not matching the color mode represented by the value of the second parameter, rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the second color mode represented by the first parameter includes: in response to the color mode represented by the value of the first parameter not matching the color mode represented by the value of the second parameter, configuring the first parameter representing the first color mode based on a virtual screen and rendering the display content of the first application in the running status based on the virtual screen, the virtual screen being established based on a dimension of the screen of the second device and the target display area;
wherein: the first parameter configured for a display screen of the first device represents the second color mode; and the first parameter configured for the virtual screen of the first device represents the first color mode different from the second color mode.
Regarding claims 11, 17, although wording is different, the material is substantively similar to the claim 5 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,513,756;
US 11,442,683;
US 11,341,882;
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