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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lambord (US 2023/0206884).
Regarding claim 1
Lambord shows the image output control method comprising:
receiving a first image (taken to be included in the video pipeline from the image source 310, in pixel data/frame 301/303 and frame data 401, see Figs. 3 and 4) sent by a graphics processor (200/300);
receiving cursor information generated based on a cursor change (taken to be cursor movement information included in the activity information 204/404, see para. 0039-0040 and 0053);
determining a target refresh signal (taken to be inherently included in the controller signals and other synchronization or control signal, see para. 0055, for generating the target frame rate, see para. 0055) according to the first image (taken to be inherently included in frame data 401 or 402 in the video data frames from the video pipeline 124, which inherently include a plurality of images), a second image (also taken to be inherently included in the video frames from the video pipeline 124, which inherently include a plurality of images, from frame data 401 and 402), and the cursor information (taken to be included in the activity information 404), the target refresh signal including at least one refresh signal of a plurality of refresh signals (see for example synchronization or control signals that can be used to update or refresh an image on the digital display, see para. 0055), and the plurality of refresh signals being used to cause a display module to perform a plurality of refreshes to transition from displaying the second image to displaying the first image (taken to be updating or changing the target frame rates by the dynamic frame rate controller 220 with the first and second frames 401 and 402, see para. 0055-0056); and
outputting the target refresh signal to the display module (taken be outputting the dynamically adjusted frame rate with the display frames 401 and 402 to the display, see Fig. 7, step 750, para. 0055-0056 and 0072).
Regarding claim 9
Lambord further shows, wherein: the cursor information includes information corresponding to at least one cursor change (taken to be movement of the cursor, see para. 0033 and 0039); the cursor change includes a cursor image change and/or cursor position change (see para. 0033 and 0039).
Regarding claim 10
Lambord further shows, the electronic device comprising:
a graphics processor (see Fig. 6 and para. 0020, 0023 and 0069);
a display module (130); and
a controller (200/300, see Figs. 1-4) configured to:
receiving a first image (taken to be included in the video pipeline from the image source 310, in pixel data/frame 301/303 and frame data 401, see Figs. 3 and 4) sent by a graphics processor (200/300);
receiving cursor information generated based on a cursor change (taken to be cursor movement information included in the activity information 204/404, see para. 0039-0040 and 0053);
determining a target refresh signal (taken to be inherently included in the controller signals and other synchronization or control signal, see para. 0055, for generating the target frame rate, see para. 0055) according to the first image (taken to be inherently included in frame data 401 or 402 in the video data frames from the video pipeline 124, which inherently include a plurality of images), a second image (also taken to be inherently included in the video frames from the video pipeline 124, which inherently include a plurality of images, from frame data 401 and 402), and the cursor information (taken to be included in the activity information 404), the target refresh signal including at least one refresh signal of a plurality of refresh signals (see for example synchronization or control signals that can be used to update or refresh an image on the digital display, see para. 0055), and the plurality of refresh signals being used to cause a display module to perform a plurality of refreshes to transition from displaying the second image to displaying the first image (taken to be updating or changing the target frame rates by the dynamic frame rate controller 220 with the first and second frames 401 and 402, see para. 0055-0056); and
outputting the target refresh signal to the display module (taken be outputting the dynamically adjusted frame rate with the display frames 401 and 402 to the display, see Fig. 7, step 750, para. 0055-0056 and 0072).
Regarding claim 18
Lambord further shows, wherein: the cursor information includes information corresponding to at least one cursor change (taken to be movement of the cursor, see para. 0033 and 0039); the cursor change includes a cursor image change and/or cursor position change (see para. 0033 and 0039).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 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 2-4
The prior art of record, Lambord (US 2023/0206884), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the image output control method, as recited in claim 1, having the further limitations which include:
wherein determining the target refresh signal according to the first image, the second image, and the cursor information includes: splicing the first image with a changed cursor image corresponding to the cursor information according to a changed cursor position to obtain a first intermediate image; and obtaining the target refresh signal at least according to the first intermediate image, as recited in claims 2-4.
Further, even though Lambord shows the invention as claimed, as discussed above in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 2-4, noted above.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Lambord, with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 2-4.
Regarding claims 5 and 6
The prior art of record, Lambord (US 2023/0206884), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the image output control method, as recited in claim 1, having the further limitations which include:
wherein determining the target refresh signal according to the first image, the second image, and the cursor information includes: performing adjustment on a signal of at least one refresh signal of a plurality of initial signals corresponding to a target pixel area according to the cursor information to obtain the target refresh signal; wherein: the plurality of initial signals are obtained according to the first image and the second image and are used to obtain the plurality of refresh signals; and the target pixel area is a pixel area corresponding to the cursor in the first image and the second image, as recited in claims 5 and 6.
Further, even though Lambord shows the invention as claimed, as discussed above in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 5 and 6, noted above.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Lambord, with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claims 7 and 8
The prior art of record, Lambord (US 2023/0206884), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the image output control method, as recited in claim 1, having the further limitations which include:
wherein: a plurality of target refresh signals are provided, and the plurality of target refresh signals have a refresh sequence; a first refresh signal in sequence of the target refresh signals at least corresponds to the second image before the cursor change; and a last refresh signal in the sequence of the target refresh signals at least corresponds to the first image after the cursor change, as recited in claims 7 and 8.
Further, even though Lambord shows the invention as claimed, as discussed above in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 7 and 8, noted above.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Lambord, with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claims 11-13
The prior art of record, Lambord (US 2023/0206884), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the electronic device, as recited in claim 10, having the further limitations which include:
wherein the controller is further configured to: splice the first image with a changed cursor image corresponding to the cursor information according to a changed cursor position to obtain a first intermediate image; and obtain the target refresh signal at least according to the first intermediate image, as recited in claims 11-13.
Further, even though Lambord shows the invention as claimed, as discussed above in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 11-13, noted above.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Lambord, with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 11-13.
Regarding claims 14 and 15
The prior art of record, Lambord (US 2023/0206884), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the electronic device, as recited in claim 10, having the further limitations which include:
wherein the controller is further configured to: perform adjustment on a signal of at least one refresh signal of a plurality of initial signals corresponding to a target pixel area according to the cursor information to obtain the target refresh signal; wherein: the plurality of initial signals are obtained according to the first image and the second image and are used to obtain the plurality of refresh signals; and the target pixel area is a pixel area corresponding to the cursor in the first image and the second image, as recited in claims 14 and 15.
Further, even though Lambord shows the invention as claimed, as discussed above in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 14 and 15, noted above.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Lambord, with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 14 and 15.
Regarding claims 16 and 17
The prior art of record, Lambord (US 2023/0206884), taken to be the closest prior art noted above, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the electronic device, as recited in claim 10, having the further limitations which include:
wherein: a plurality of target refresh signals are provided, and the plurality of target refresh signals have a refresh sequence; a first refresh signal in sequence of the target refresh signals at least corresponds to the second image before the cursor change; and a last refresh signal in sequence of the target refresh signals at least corresponds to the first image after the cursor change, as recited in claims 16 and 17.
Further, even though Lambord shows the invention as claimed, as discussed above in the above rejections, it does not specifically show or render obvious the limitations of claims 16 and 17, noted above.
Therefore, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, would not consider it obvious to modify Lambord, with any of the prior art of record, to include the limitations as recited in claims 16 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imanishi et al. (US 2024/0378006), shows a display device having the ability of detecting a change in cursor position and updating the refreshing information based on the cursor information and display images (see the abstract, Figs. 1-7, and para. 0003-0079).
Jordan (US 2015/0084908), shows a display device having the ability of detecting a change in cursor position and updating the refreshing information based on the cursor information and display images (see the abstract, Figs. 1-7, and para. 0003-0056).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N. EDUN/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2629
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629