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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weedermann (US 20230041190).
With respect to claim 2, Weedermann discloses, a system (fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (702 in fig. 7);
a first application and a second application, each of the first application and the second application executing at a first refresh rate (602 in fig. 6); and
a memory (720, 722, 710 in fig. 7) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
determine to temporarily boost the first refresh rate to a second refresh rate (604 in fig. 6), wherein the second refresh rate is higher than the first refresh rate (para. 43 details the second refresh rate is a faster rate than the first refresh rate),
transmit a first signal to the first application (para. 21; “the computing device allows the selected application(s) to run at a faster refresh rate than the remaining applications” “the selected application(s) […] is allowed to receive the continuous data stream and run a the high refresh rate”) to refresh at the second refresh rate (para. 43),
transmit a second signal to the second application to maintain refreshing at the first refresh rate (para. 21, “The non-selected application(s) can be represented by an image, including a compressed image file that is updated based on the (relatively) slow refresh rate.”) based on a type of content shown by the second application (para. 21; “the non-selected application(s), being updated at a slower refresh rate, represents a server (or servers) of less interest to the user.”; herein the user interest is inherently based on the type of content; para. 34 also discusses changing information resulting in a higher refresh rate; also see para. 38), and
control the first application to refresh at the second refresh rate upon receipt of the first signal, and the second application to maintain refreshing at the first refresh rate upon receipt of the second signal (606 in fig. 6).
With respect to claim 3, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above), wherein transmitting the second signal to the second application based on the type of content shown by the second application comprises transmitting the second signal to the second application based on a capability of the second application (para. 31 details determining which servers are above or below a network bandwidth threshold, herein mapped to the capability of the second application, to alter refresh rates).
With respect to claim 5, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above), wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: display the first application and the second application on at least one of the same user interface or the same display (406 in fig. 4).
With respect to claim 7, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above), wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: maintain frame statistics comprising at least one of a last frame time, a current composition rate, a current time, a time frequency, or a next estimated frame time (para. 37 details updating applications at 0.1, 0.5, 30, 60 Hz or fps, these are seen as a “time frequency. Additionally this claim states “at least one of” a, b, OR c. This is being interpreted as a disjointed claim limitation. Namely that only one of a, b OR c need be cited to disclose the limitation. Should the applicant wish that the claim instead be read to include at least one of each of the frame statistics, i.e. frame time AND current time etc., they are invited to expressly note this in future correspondence).
With respect to claim 10, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above), wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: track a time for at least one of a previous frame or a next frame (para. 37 details updating applications at 0.1, 0.5, 30, 60 Hz or fps, these are seen as tracking a time for both previous and next frame. Additionally this claim states “at least one of” a OR b. This is being interpreted as a disjointed claim limitation. Namely that only one of a OR b need be cited to disclose the limitation. Should the applicant wish that the claim instead be read to require tracking time for at least one previous and at least one next frame, they are invited to expressly note this in future correspondence).
With respect to claim 12, Weedermann discloses, a system (fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (702 in fig. 7);
a first application and a second application, each of the first application and the second application executing at a first refresh rate (602 in fig. 6); and
a memory (720, 722, 710 in fig. 7) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
determine to temporarily boost the first refresh rate to a second refresh rate (604 in fig. 6), wherein the second refresh rate is higher than the first refresh rate (para. 43 details the second refresh rate is a faster rate than the first refresh rate),
transmit a first signal to the first application (para. 21; “the computing device allows the selected application(s) to run at a faster refresh rate than the remaining applications” “the selected application(s) […] is allowed to receive the continuous data stream and run a the high refresh rate”) to refresh at the second refresh rate (para. 43) based on the first application being opted in to the second refresh rate (para. 31-32 details the user selecting which applications to be in focus or selected. The non-selected applications by the user are maintained at lower refresh rates. This user selection is seen as equivalent to the user “opting” the application out of the second faster refresh rate; para. 31-32, 37 detail user selection or focus, via, for example cursor hovering, which then result in an increased refresh rate),
transmit a second signal to the second application to maintain refreshing at the first refresh rate (para. 21, “The non-selected application(s) can be represented by an image, including a compressed image file that is updated based on the (relatively) slow refresh rate.”) based on the second application being opted out of the second refresh rate (para. 31-32 details the user selecting which applications to be in focus or selected. The non-selected applications by the user are maintained at lower refresh rates. This user selection is seen as equivalent to the user “opting” the application out of the second faster refresh rate), and
control the first application to refresh at the second refresh rate upon receipt of the first signal, and the second application to maintain refreshing at the first refresh rate upon receipt of the second signal (606 in fig. 6).
With respect to claim 13, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above), wherein the first application has been opted in to the second refresh rate via a user selection (para. 31-32, 37 detail user selection or focus, via, for example cursor hovering, which then result in an increased refresh rate).
With respect to claim 14, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above), wherein the second application has been opted out of the second refresh rate via a user selection (para. 31-32, 37 details the user selecting which applications to be in focus or selected. The non-selected applications by the user are maintained at lower refresh rates).
With respect to claim 16, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above), wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: display the first application and the second application on at least one of the same user interface or the same display (406 in fig. 4).
With respect to claim 19, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above), wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: track a time for at least one of a previous frame or a next frame (para. 37 details updating applications at 0.1, 0.5, 30, 60 Hz or fps, these are seen as tracking a time for both previous and next frame. Additionally this claim states “at least one of” a OR b. This is being interpreted as a disjointed claim limitation. Namely that only one of a OR b need be cited to disclose the limitation. Should the applicant wish that the claim instead be read to require tracking time for at least one previous and at least one next frame, they are invited to expressly note this in future correspondence).
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 (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 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, 6, 8, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weedermann (US 2023/0041190) in view of Honda (US 2021/0256891).
With respect to claim 4, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose controlling display refresh rates based on an application being unable to refresh at the second refresh rate.
Honda discloses, limiting the refresh rate of the display based on what the maximum capable frames per second of the application are (s30 in fig. 2).
Honda and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Honda known technique of refresh rate adjustment based on the refresh rate achievable by the application to the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of adjusting refresh rate of an application only when that application is capable of refreshing at the adjusted rate.
With respect to claim 6, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose maintain frame statistics for a previous frame and a next expected frame.
Honda discloses, maintain frame statistics for a previous frame and a next expected frame (fig. 3 details recording max fps determined using previously detected frames and uses that value for future expected frames of the same application).
Honda and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Honda known technique of maintaining frame statistics in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
With respect to claim 8, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above), wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
Weedermann does not expressly disclose utilize a frame statistic to return at least one of an estimated time, a composition rate, or a virtual synchronization count for a following frame.
Honda discloses, utilize a frame statistic to return at least one of an estimated time, a composition rate (s20 details detection of frame rate which is seen as equivalent to composition rate), or a virtual synchronization count for a following frame.
Honda and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Honda known technique of maintaining frame statistics in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
With respect to claim 17, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above), Weedermann does not expressly disclose utilize a frame statistic to return at least one of an estimated time, a composition rate, or a virtual synchronization count for a following frame.
Honda discloses, utilize a frame statistic to return at least one of an estimated time, a composition rate (s20 details detection of frame rate which is seen as equivalent to composition rate), or a virtual synchronization count for a following frame.
Honda and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Honda known technique of maintaining frame statistics in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
With respect to claim 21, Weedermann discloses, a system (fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (702 in fig. 7);
a first application and a second application, each of the first application and the second application executing at a first refresh rate (602 in fig. 6); and
a memory (720, 722, 710 in fig. 7) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
determine to temporarily boost the first refresh rate to a second refresh rate (604 in fig. 6), wherein the second refresh rate is higher than the first refresh rate (para. 43 details the second refresh rate is a faster rate than the first refresh rate),
transmit a first signal to the first application (para. 21; “the computing device allows the selected application(s) to run at a faster refresh rate than the remaining applications” “the selected application(s) […] is allowed to receive the continuous data stream and run a the high refresh rate”) to refresh at the second refresh rate (para. 43) based on the first application being capable of refreshing at the second refresh rate and being opted in to the second refresh rate (para. 31-32 details the user selecting which applications to be in focus or selected. The non-selected applications by the user are maintained at lower refresh rates. This user selection is seen as equivalent to the user “opting” the application out of the second faster refresh rate; para. 31-32, 37 detail user selection or focus, via, for example cursor hovering, which then result in an increased refresh rate),
transmit a second signal to the second application to maintain refreshing at the first refresh rate (para. 21, “The non-selected application(s) can be represented by an image, including a compressed image file that is updated based on the (relatively) slow refresh rate.”) based on the second application being unable to refresh at the second refresh rate being opted out of the second refresh rate (para. 31-32 details the user selecting which applications to be in focus or selected. The non-selected applications by the user are maintained at lower refresh rates. This user selection is seen as equivalent to the user “opting” the application out of the second faster refresh rate), and
control the first application to refresh at the second refresh rate upon receipt of the first signal, and the second application to maintain refreshing at the first refresh rate upon receipt of the second signal (606 in fig. 6).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose controlling display refresh rates based on an application being unable to refresh at the second refresh rate.
Honda discloses, limiting the refresh rate of the display based on what the maximum capable frames per second of the application are (s30 in fig. 2).
Honda and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Honda known technique of refresh rate adjustment based on the refresh rate achievable by the application to the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of adjusting refresh rate of an application only when that application is capable of refreshing at the adjusted rate.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weedermann (US 2023/0041190) in view of Ramadoss (US 2020/0410627).
With respect to claim 9, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose mapping a frame statistic to a clock.
Ramadoss discloses, mapping a frame statistic to a clock (para. 56 details interfacing between clocks in the graphic core and clocks in the main processor).
Ramadoss and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Ramadoss known technique of maintaining frame statistics, namely clocks, in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
With respect to claim 11, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 2 (see above).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose mapping a frame statistic to at least one of a virtualized vblank or a non-virtualized vblank.
Ramadoss discloses, mapping a frame statistic to at least one of a virtualized vblank or a non-virtualized vblank (para. 194 details Vblank statistical analysis. Additionally this claim states “at least one of” a OR b. This is being interpreted as a disjointed claim limitation. Namely that only one of a OR b need be cited to disclose the limitation. Should the applicant wish that the claim instead be read to require tracking time for at least one previous and at least one next frame, they are invited to expressly note this in future correspondence).
Ramadoss and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Ramadoss known technique of maintaining frame statistics, namely vblanks, in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
With respect to claim 18, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose mapping a frame statistic to a clock.
Ramadoss discloses, mapping a frame statistic to a clock (para. 56 details interfacing between clocks in the graphic core and clocks in the main processor).
Ramadoss and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Ramadoss known technique of maintaining frame statistics, namely clocks, in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
With respect to claim 20, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose mapping a frame statistic to at least one of a virtualized vblank or a non-virtualized vblank.
Ramadoss discloses, mapping a frame statistic to at least one of a virtualized vblank or a non-virtualized vblank (para. 194 details Vblank statistical analysis. Additionally this claim states “at least one of” a OR b. This is being interpreted as a disjointed claim limitation. Namely that only one of a OR b need be cited to disclose the limitation. Should the applicant wish that the claim instead be read to require tracking time for at least one previous and at least one next frame, they are invited to expressly note this in future correspondence).
Ramadoss and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Ramadoss known technique of maintaining frame statistics, namely vblanks, in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weedermann (US 2023/0041190) in view of Kim (US 2013/0106810).
With respect to claim 15, Weedermann discloses, the system of claim 12 (see above), wherein the first application has been opted in to a refresh rate at a higher frequency than the first refresh rate (para. 31-32 details the user selecting which applications to be in focus or selected. The non-selected applications by the user are maintained at lower refresh rates. This user selection is seen as equivalent to the user “opting” the application out of the second faster refresh rate; para. 31-32, 37 detail user selection or focus, via, for example cursor hovering, which then result in an increased refresh rate).
Weedermann does not expressly disclose a clock notification rate.
Kim discloses, a clock notification rate for an application that corresponds to frame rates (para. 11, 37).
Kim and Weedermann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely variable refresh rate displays and applications.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Kim known technique of clock notifications, in the Weedermann base device. Such a combination would have yielded the predictable result of repeatedly monitoring the frame rates the application is capable of refreshing at.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights