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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 Lines 1-2 recites, “The device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: . . .” The base claim, Claim 1, is a method claim, while Claim 16 is a device claim. Based on the context that independent Claim 10 is a device claim, Claim 16 should be changed to read, “The device according to claim 10, wherein . . .” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20230011676 A1) (Hereinafter referred to Lin) in view of Watson, (“CSS: 100% width or height while keeping aspect ratio?”) and in further view of Li (US 20200401758 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin discloses A display method comprising: (See Lin Abstract, “An image processing method applied to a display device . . .”)
in response to an instruction to display a target image, obtaining a first display parameter of the target image; and (See [0027], “In operation S204, the processing circuit 110 adjusts the size of the first image proportionally according to the size of the display area of the screen 120.” In this case, the size of the first image would correspond to “a first display parameter of the target image”.)
in response to the first display parameter and a first size parameter of a target display area satisfying a predetermined condition, displaying the target image in the target display area with the first display parameter, and displaying other images in a blank area of the target display area; (See [0027], “In operation S204, the processing circuit 110 adjusts the size of the first image proportionally according to the size of the display area of the screen 120. In operation S205, the processing circuit 110 calculates another blank area (which has a size different from the blank area 121) of the screen 120 based on the adjusted first image. In operation S206, the processing circuit 110 requests another third image (which has a size different from the third image 60) from the electronic device 12 according to the size of said another blank area. In operation S207, the processing circuit 110 fills the display area of the screen 120 with the adjusted first image and said another third image.” Also see Figs. 5 and 6 showing the adjusted first image 50, blank area 121, and third image.
Here, Lin teaches the size of the display area of the screen (a first size parameter of a target display area), adjusting of the size of the first image according to the size of the display area to get an adjusted first image (satisfying a predetermined condition, noting the condition being to adjust the image), filling the display area with the adjusted first image (displaying the target image in the target display area with the first display parameter), and the third image requested according to the size of another blank area (other images in a blank area of the target display area).
Further see [0023], “In this example, the blank area 121 represents a remaining area capable of displaying other pictures after the display area of the screen 12 displays the image 50.” Note that although the examples and figures only explicitly show two image, the adjusted first image in the display area and a third image for the blank area, based on the teachings of Lin in [0023], the blank area is capable of displaying more than one other pictures.)
wherein:
the blank area is an area that is not occupied by the target image when the target image is displayed in the target display area with the first display parameter; (See Fig. 5 showing blank area 121, which is an area not occupied by the target image when the target image is displayed in the target display area with the first display parameter.)
calculating a proportion of the blank area in the target display area; and (See [0023], “In operation S205, the processing circuit 110 calculates the blank area 121 of the screen 120 based on the adjusted second image (i.e., the image 50). In this example, the blank area 121 represents a remaining area capable of displaying other pictures after the display area of the screen 12 displays the image 50. In an assumption that the screen 120 can display a maximal image having 3840*080 pixels, the processing circuit 110 can obtain that the size of the blank area 121 of the screen 120 is 3233*080 pixels by subtracting the image 50 having 607*080 pixels from the maximal image that the screen 120 can display.”)
the other images are different from the target image. (See [0023], “In this example, the blank area 121 represents a remaining area capable of displaying other pictures after the display area of the screen 12 displays the image 50.” Also see Fig. 6 showing that the third image 60 is different from the target image 50.)
However, Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the first display parameter is a maximum display parameter of the target image when the target image is limited by the first size parameter of the target display area;
the predetermined condition indicates that a proportion of the blank area in the target display area is greater than a predetermined ratio; and
Watson teaches wherein: the first display parameter is a maximum display parameter of the target image when the target image is limited by the first size parameter of the target display area; (See Page 4, “By setting the CSS max-width property to 100%, an image will fill the width of it’s parenting element, but won’t render larger than it’s actual size, this preserving resolution.”
Note that the max-width property in CSS is very well-known and commonly used to set the maximum width an element is allowed to occupy. It prevents the element's horizontal size from expanding larger than the specified limit. Thus, one can consider the max-width to be “a maximum display parameter of the target image when the target image is limited by the first size parameter of the target display area”. In this example, the max-width example was 100%, but it could also be some pixel count (See Watson Page 7 example).
In combination with Lin already teaching the adjusted first image (target image) filling a display area, the target image can have a max-width property (a maximum display parameter of the target image when the target image is limited by the first size parameter of the target display area).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with Watson to include having the first display parameter be a maximum display parameter of the target image when the target image is limited by the first size parameter of the target display area.
The motivation to combine Lin with Watson would have been obvious as both arts are related to the field of image processing and presentation (See Watson Pages 1-4). Watson is simply shows the very well-known max-width property, which can be applied to images to better fit the parent container and the stylistic needs of the user. Thus, since Watson already teaches an image within a display area container, then applying this well-known property would be a trivially implementation, and a matter of a design choice.
However, Lin in view of Watson still fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined condition indicates that a proportion of the blank area in the target display area is greater than a predetermined ratio; and
Li teaches the predetermined condition indicates that a proportion of the blank area in the target display area is greater than a predetermined ratio; and (See [0005], “receiving target content entered in a first display region;” See [0006], “calculating an occupancy rate based on the target content and the first display region in real time;” See [0007], “reducing a font size of the target content in response to that the occupancy rate satisfies a first condition; and” Lastly, see [0014], “In a possible implementation, according to the method for displaying content provided by the present disclosure, the first condition is that the occupancy rate is greater than a preset threshold.”
In summary, Li is an art that teaches finding the occupancy rate of content in a display region, which is analogous and an inverse of finding “a proportion of the blank area in the target display area”. Then, Li teaches that the occupancy rate can be used as a predetermined condition and that there can be a preset threshold. It should be noted that the target content taught by Li is text-based, and that the predetermined condition is used to reduce the font size, however, this idea of occupancy rate and a preset threshold can still be applied. Thus, the combination of Lin view of Watson and Li, would teach the above limitations as Lin can use the calculated blank area as a predetermined condition before displaying the other images in the blank area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin in view of Watson with Li to include having a predetermined condition indicate a proportion of blank area being greater than a predetermined ratio.
The motivation to combine Lin in view of Watson with Li would have been obvious as both Lin and Li teach finding how much space that content occupies/not occupies (See Li [0006]). Li simply shows that using that occupation rate as a predetermined condition before executing an operation and having a preset threshold, is a common and easily applicable idea. The benefit of having this predetermined condition is that it allows user to better utilize the display space.
Regarding Claim 2, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising, before displaying the other images in the blank area of the target display area: determining a second display parameter of the other images based on the first display parameter and the first size parameter; (See Watson Page 4 and 7 showing that images can have a max-width property and thus the other images can also have a max-width property (a second display parameter).)
wherein displaying the other images in the blank area of the target display area includes displaying the other images in the blank area of the target display area with the second display parameter. (See Lin [0023] teaching to display other pictures in the blank area. See Lin [0024], “In operation S206, the processing circuit 110 requests a third image 60 from the electronic device 12 (i.e., another one of the electronic devices) according to the size of the blank area 121. . . Accordingly, the electronic device 12 can provides the third image 60 which has a same size as the blank area 121 and without black borders for the processing circuit 110 through the signal.”
Here, Lin shows that one can have the size of the third image (other images) be the same size of the blank area. In combination with Watson Page 4 and 7 showing that images can have a max-width property (a second display parameter), instead the images would be displayed with the second display parameter. The motivation to combine would have been similar to Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 3, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein: the second display parameter is a maximum display parameter of the other images when the other images are limited by a second size parameter of the blank area; or (See Watson Page 4 and 7 showing that images can have a max-width property (a second display parameter), which can limit the size of the image within the constraints of its parent container (limited by a second size parameter).
Also see Lin [0024], “In operation S206, the processing circuit 110 requests a third image 60 from the electronic device 12 (i.e., another one of the electronic devices) according to the size of the blank area 121” Once again, it would be implied that the other images are limited by the size of the blank area (a second size parameter of the blank area).)
the second display parameter has a same side length as a side length of the target display area in a first direction, and the first direction is a direction in which the target image and the target display area have a same side length. (See Watson Page 4 showing an example of max-width with 100%. This would result in a same side length as a side length of the parent container. Also see Watson Page 7 showing an example of max-width with 600px. In either case, the max-width value (second display parameter) can have the same length as the length of the target display area in a first direction. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 5, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein: an aspect ratio of the other images is the same as or different from an aspect ratio of the target image. (See Lin [0017], “In particular, if the screen of the electronic device 10 displays an images with 750*1334 pixels (equivalent to an image with an aspect ratio of 9:16). . . ” Here, Lin teaching that the images have an aspect ratio.
See Watson Page 4 max-width as well as, “Setting the height property to auto maintains the aspect ratio of the image . . .” Note that both Lin and Watson do not specify if the aspect ratio of the other images are the same or different from the target image, however, a user can easily specify the aspect ratios of the other images, as shown by Watson using CSS. Thus, this would be a simple design choice for either option. The motivation to combine would have been similar to Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 6, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein displaying the target image in the target display area with the first display parameter includes: displaying the target image in a center of the target display area with the first display parameter. (See Watson Page 3 and 6 showing an example CSS code on how to set an image to the center of a parent container. The motivation to combine would have been similar to Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to the target display area including a first display area and a second display area, (See Li [0031], “FIG. 3 is an effect drawing of a first display region and a second display region in a method for displaying content according to an embodiment of the disclosure.” Also see Fig. 3 showing the second display region. Once again, Li teaches that the display regions are for text, however, applying it to images would function just as well. Note that this teaching is primarily used to show that a target display area can include more than one display area.
Also see Watson Page 3 showing the HTML code for an image container. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to implement more than one image container, and thus more than one display region.)
displaying a first target image in the first display area with a fourth display parameter, displaying a second target image in the second display area with a fifth display parameter, displaying a first other image in a first blank area, and displaying a second other image in a second blank area; (See Li Fig. 3 and Watson Page 3 regarding a second display area. In combination with Lin [0027] teaching to display an adjusted first image (first target image) in a display area of the screen (first display area) and a third image to fill in the blank area (displaying a first other image in a first blank area), then simply repeating and applying this process for the second display area would result in a second target image in the second display area and displaying a second other image in a second blank area.)
wherein: the fourth display parameter is a maximum display parameter of the first target image when the first target image is limited by a size parameter of the first display area; the fifth display parameter is a maximum display parameter of the second target image when the second target image is limited by a size parameter of the second display area; (See Watson Page 4 teaching the max-width property in CSS (fourth and fifth display parameter).)
the first blank area is an area not occupied by the first target image when the first target image is displayed in the first display area with the fourth display parameter; and the second blank area is an area not occupied by the second target image when the second target image is displayed in the second display area with the fifth display parameter. (See Li Fig. 3 and Watson Page 3 regarding a second display area. In combination with Lin [0023] teaching how to calculate the blank area of a display region, then the above limitations are taught, as by repeating the process of the first area to the second area, one would derive the first and second blank areas. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 8, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to the size parameter of the target display area being a third size parameter, determining the other image as a third other image; and in response to the size parameter of the target display area being a fourth size parameter, determining the other image as a fourth other image. (See Lin [0023], “In an assumption that the screen 120 can display a maximal image having 3840*080 pixels, the processing circuit 110 can obtain that the size of the blank area 121 of the screen 120 is 3233*080 pixels by subtracting the image 50 having 607*080 pixels from the maximal image that the screen 120 can display.” Here, Lin teaches an example of having the size of the display screen (the size parameter of the target display area being a third size parameter).
See Lin [0024], “In operation S206, the processing circuit 110 requests a third image 60 from the electronic device 12 (i.e., another one of the electronic devices) according to the size of the blank area 121.” The third image (other image) is requested according to the size of the blank area, with the blank area being calculated based on the size display area (third size parameter).
Note that the claim limitations do specify what it means for “determining the other image as a third other image” and does not define a distinction between the “other image” over “a third other image”. Thus based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, having the third image taught by Lin which is requested according to the size of the blank area would be sufficient to determining that the other image as the “a third other image”. The same applies to the fourth size parameter and fourth other image. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 9, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses The method according to claim 3, wherein the second display parameter has a side length the same as the side length of the target display area in the first direction, the first direction is a direction in which the target image has a side length the same as the side length of the target display area, and displaying the other image in the blank area of the target display area includes: in response to the size parameter of the target display area being a fifth size parameter, determining the other image displayed in the blank area as a first area of the other image; and (See Lin [0023], “In an assumption that the screen 120 can display a maximal image having 3840*080 pixels, the processing circuit 110 can obtain that the size of the blank area 121 of the screen 120 is 3233*080 pixels by subtracting the image 50 having 607*080 pixels from the maximal image that the screen 120 can display.” Here, Lin teaches having the size of the display screen be an example 3840*080 pixels. Obviously, screens can have more different display sizes with Lin [0023] teaching one example size, and would thus correspond to “the target display area being a fifth parameter”. See Lin Figs. 5-6 showing the other image filled into the blank area.
Note that since the claim limitations does not further specify a meaning to “determining that the other image displayed in the blank area as a first area of the other image”, the broadest reasonable interpretation by the Examiner is that simply having the other image displayed in the blank area is sufficient to read on the above limitations.)
in response to the size parameter of the target display area being a sixth size parameter, determining the other image displayed in the blank area as a second area of the other image. (See Lin [0023] teaching an example size of the display screen. Thus obviously, there can be a sixth size parameter for the target display area. See Figs. 5-6 showing the other image filled into the blank area Once again, since no distinction is made for the second area of the other image, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, having the other image display in the blank area is sufficient to read on the above limitations.)
Regarding Claim 10, Lin in view of Watson and Li discloses An electronic device comprising: a display screen configured to display an image one or more processors, and one or more memories storing a computer program that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: (See Lin Abstract, “An image processing method applied to a display device having a processing circuit and a screen and includes: receiving a first image from one of a plurality of electronic devices . .” Note although not explicitly stated, processors, memory, and a computer program would be implied to exist.)
in response to an instruction to display a target image, obtain a first display parameter of the target image; and in response to the first display parameter and a first size parameter of a target display area satisfy a predetermined condition, display the target image in the target display area with the first display parameter, and display other images in a blank area of the target display area; wherein: the first display parameter is a maximum display parameter of the target image when the target image is limited by the first size parameter of the target display area; the blank area is an area that is not occupied by the target image when the target image is displayed in the target display area with the first display parameter; the predetermined condition indicates that a proportion of the blank area in the target display area is greater than a predetermined ratio; and the other images are different from the target image. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as to Claim 2 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites similar limitations as to Claim 3 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations as to Claim 5 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar limitations as to Claim 6 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as to Claim 7 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites similar limitations as to Claim 8 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as to Claim 9 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 9.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Watson and Li and in further view of Leventhal et al. (US 10366147 B2) (Hereinafter referred to as Leventhal).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin in view of Watson and Li fails to explicitly discloses The method according to claim 3, further comprising: in response to an interactive operation indicating image enlargement, displaying a partial area of a first image in the target display area with a third display parameter; wherein the first image is the target image or the other image indicated by the interactive operation.
Leventhal teaches in response to an interactive operation indicating image enlargement, displaying a partial area of a first image in the target display area with a third display parameter; wherein the first image is the target image or the other image indicated by the interactive operation. (See Col 3 Lines 46 – 52, “As an alternative to such web browser functionality, some operating systems and some third-party software offer the ability to magnify some content shown on a display screen, such as through a “magnifying glass” type interface that allows for displaying an enlarged image of what is displayed in the area surrounding a cursor of a pointing device (e.g., a cursor of a mouse or touchpad).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin in view of Watson and Li with Leventhal to include having an interactive operation indicating image enlargement.
The motivation to combine Lin in view of Watson and Li with Leventhal would have been obvious as Lin, Watson, and Leventhal are all related to the display and rendering of images (See Leventhal Background). Including a magnifying feature for images is a very common idea and provides a benefit of having more accessibility to users with visual impairments (See Leventhal Col 3 Lines 55 – 61).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites similar limitations as to Claim 4 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG G HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-4:30pm EST | Fri 7:30am-11:30am EST.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights