UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/ 23 0,445 09/ 2/ 201 1 David Washington 333246.01 9475 69316 7590 04/11/2013 I EXAMINER I MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY NGUYEN, VU REDMOND, WA 98052 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/1 l/2013 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on aboVe--indicated "Notification Date" to the following e--mail address(es): Vffiling@microsoft.com steVensp@microsoft.com PTOL--90A (Rev. 04/07) Application No. App|icant(s) 13/230,445 WASHINGTON ET AL. Office Action Summary Examine, Art Unit VU NGUYEN 2677 -- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -- Period for Reply A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE OR THIRTY (30) DAYS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION. Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. -- If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. -- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. 133). Any reply received by the Office laterthan three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR Status 1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12 September 201 1. 2a)I:l This action is FINAL. 2b) This action is non--final. An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on j; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action. Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11 453 O.G. 213. Disposition of Claims pending in the application. 5a) Of the above claim(s) is/are withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) is/are allowed. 7) rejected. Claim(s) is/are objected to. Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement. If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.qcw. Application Papers 10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner. The drawing(s) filed on 12 September 2011 is/are: accepted or objected to by the Examiner. Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR Priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. or All Some None of: Certified copies of the priority documents have been received. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received. Attachment(s) 1) Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 3) Interview Summary (PTO-413) Paper Date. . 2) Information Disclosure Statement(s) 4) El Other: . Paper Date . J.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12) Ofiice Action Summary Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130322 Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 2 Art Unit: 2677 DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The Examiner considered the submitted information disclosure statement (IDS). Note that the cited NPL URL reference appeared to be invalid and thus was not considered. Claim Objections Claim 2 objected to because of the following informality: Claim 2 recites "the display component accessible to the device," where "the display component |is/being| accessible to the device" was apparently intended (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claim 20 recites a "computer- readable storage medium," which as interpreted is non-statutory. Applicant is suggested to amend to "non-transitory computer--readable storage medium." Support for such amendment can be found in PG Pub 1] Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 3 Art Unit: 2677 Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102 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 -- the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by "Writing DP|--Aware Win32 Applications" (hereinafter Haveson). For claim 1, Haveson teaches a method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising: executing on the processor instructions configured to: identify a pixel density of the display component (Haveson12, ll. 60, get pixel density functions); for respective elements of the presentation: from a scale factor set, select a scale factor having a pixel density range including the pixel density of the display component (Haveson, p. 15, II. 50-75, selecting best fit DPI from set of DPI settings based on scaling factor); and request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor (Haveson, p. 16, II. 44-71, getting the right resource to load); and Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 4 Art Unit: 2677 generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements (Haveson, p. 16, II. 69-74, loading right resource). For claim 2, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: the display component accessible to the device (Haveson, p. 32, II. 13-56, display monitors accessible to machines running Microsoft operating system); and identifying the pixel density of the display component comprising: querying the display component to report the pixel density (Haveson12, ll. 60, get pixel density functions of monitors). For claim 3, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1, the scale factor set comprising: a first scale factor selected based on a first pixel density range comprising at least a first pixel density and a second pixel density (Haveson, p. 32, II. 13-40, scale level 100% based on range of DPls); and a second scale factor selected based on a second pixel density range comprising at least a third pixel density and a fourth pixel density (Haveson, p. 32, II. 13-40, scale level 125% based on range of DPls). For claim 4, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: respective elements having a native size (Haveson, p. 12, II. 63-75, baseline and Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 5 Art Unit: 2677 respective scale factors specified as a percentage of the native size of the element (Haveson, p. 15, II. 52-58, percentages of baseline DPI). For claim 6, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: the presentation comprising a target size (Haveson, p. 15, II. 50-58, 96 and the scale factor set comprising: a first scale factor selected to present the presentation at the target size on a first display component having a first pixel density (Haveson, p. 16, ll. 8-75, scale factor for 96); and a second scale factor selected to present the presentation at the target size on a second display component having a second pixel density (Haveson, p. 16, ll. 8-75, scale factor for 120). For claim 9, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: the device having a set of pixel dimensions (Haveson, p. 32, II. 13-56, display with different DPI configuration); and selecting the scale factor comprising: from the scale factor set, selecting a scale factor based on the pixel density and the pixel dimensions of the device (Haveson, p. 32, II. 13-56, scale factor level). For claim 10, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 6 Art Unit: 2677 the device having a user scale factor selected by a user of the device (Haveson, p. 27, II. 16-72, user adjusting and selecting the scale factor comprising: from the scale factor set, selecting a scale factor based on the user scale factor and the pixel density (Haveson, p. 15, ll. 50- 75, selecting best fit DPI from set of DPI settings based on scaling factor). For claim 11, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1 respective scale factors associated with a pixel density range stored as a pixel count per square area (Haveson, p. 15, II. 38-75, and selecting the scale factor comprising: computing the pixel density of the display component as a pixel count per square area (Haveson, p. 32, II. 17-40, optimal DPI chart); and comparing the pixel density with the pixel density range of respective scale factors (Haveson, p. 15, II. 50-75, DPI versus range of DPIS and percentages). For claim 14, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: respective elements having an element type (Haveson, p. 13, II. 17-34, scaling text; p. 15, II. 38-76, scaling graphics; p. 15, II. 42-44, custom scaling); requesting the elements to generate a scaled representation comprising: requesting the elements of a first element type to generate a scaled representation (Haveson, p. 14, II. 11-46, requesting). and Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 7 Art Unit: 2677 refraining from requesting the elements of a second element type to generate a scaled representation (Haveson, p. 13, II. 34-73, text specific functions); and generating the presentation comprising: generating the presentation comprising: the scaled representations of the elements of the first element type (Haveson, p. 14, II. 11-46, scaling font), and unscaled representations of the elements of the second element type (Haveson, p. 14, II. 11-46, scaling only font functions implies graphics are not scaled, unless otherwise specified). For claim 17, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1, the instructions configured to, upon receiving a request to present the presentation on a second pixel density that is different from the pixel density: for respective elements: identify the second pixel density of the display component (Haveson, p. 32, II. 17-40, Panel differing from OS DPls); from a scale factor set, select a second scale factor based on the second pixel density (Haveson, p. 32, II. 17-40, scale levels); and request the element to generate a second scaled representation using the second scale factor (see claim 1 rejection); and generate a second presentation comprising the second scaled representations of the elements (see claim 1 rejection). Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 8 Art Unit: 2677 For claim 19, Haveson teaches a method of presenting elements on a display component of a device having a processor, the method comprising: sending to the device instructions that, when executed on the processor, cause the device to: identify a pixel density of the display component (see claim 1 rejection); from a scale factor set, select a scale factor based on the pixel density (see claim 1 rejection); request respective elements to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor (see claim 1 rejection); and present on the display component a presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements (see claim 1 rejection). Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. I. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haveson as applied above, and further in view of Kaasila et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2003/0095135 hereinafter Kaasila). Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 9 Art Unit: 2677 For claim 5, Haveson teaches the method of claim 4, the scale factor set comprising: a first scale factor having a percentage greater than 100% (Haveson, p. 32, II. 13-40, 125%); Haveson does not explicitly teach, but Kaasila teaches: and a second scale factor having a percentage less than 100% (Kaasila, Figs. 35 and 36, 111] [0601] and [0602], scale factor less than 100%). Haveson and Kaasila are analogous because they are directed at digital content scahng. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Haveson and Kaasila. One of the reasons would have been to optimize relatively limited computing resources, such as computational power, memory, or bandwidth to the Internet (Kaasila, 1] [0076]). ll. Claims 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haveson as applied above, and further in view of Barenbrug et al. (U.S. Pat. No. US 2006/0158451 hereinafter Barenbrug). For claim 7, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1. Haveson does not explicitly teach, but Barenbrug teaches: the presentation comprising an element grid (Barenbrug, Fig. 3, 1] [0046], mipmap grid); and Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 10 Art Unit: 2677 the scale factor selected to size the elements according to the element grid (Barenbrug, 111] [0058] and selecting correct mipmap portion based on resolution). Haveson and Barenbrug are analogous because they are directed at computer graphics processing. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Haveson and Barenbrug (Haveson- Barenbrug). One of the reasons to apply the concept present in mipmapping would have been to conserve memory bandwidth (Barenbrug, 1] For claim 8, Haveson-Barenbrug teaches the method of claim 7: the element grid comprising respective pixel boundaries (Barenbrug, 1] [0045], and coordinates); and the scale factors selected to, for elements of an element type having a native size, scale the elements to match the pixel boundaries of the element grid (Barenbrug, 1] coordinates; 111] [0058] and selecting correct mipmap portion based on resolution). The same motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 7 applies equally to claim 8. For claim 12, Haveson-Barenbrug teaches the method of claim 1 Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 11 Art Unit: 2677 at least one element storing scaled representations of the element at respective scale factors (Barenbrug, Fig. 3, 1] [0046], mipmap grid); and requesting the element to generate a scaled representation comprising: retrieving from the element the scaled representation at the scale factor (Barenbrug, 1] [0045], coordinates; 111] [0058] and [0061], selecting correct mipmap portion based on resolution). The same motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 7 applies equally to claim 12. Claims 13 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haveson as applied above, and further in view of Newhall et al. (U.S. Pat. No. US 7,525,551 hereinafter Newhall). For claim 13, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1. Haveson does not explicitly teach, but Newhall teaches: the device having a scaled representation cache (Newhall, col. 4, II. 24-40, texture memory); and requesting an element to generate a scaled representation comprising: querying the scaled representation cache for a scaled representation of the element associated with the scale factor (Newhall, col. 6, II. 32-45, step 305, determining "squash" value for a set of pixels); upon locating the scaled representation in the scaled representation cache, retrieving the scaled representation from the scaled representation cache (Newhall, col. 7, II. 45-50, selecting ripmap): and Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 12 Art Unit: 2677 upon failing to locate the scaled representation in the scaled representation cache (Newhall, Fig. 3): requesting the element to generate the scaled representation using the scale factor (Newhall, Fig. 3, col. 9, II. 24-32, step 340, creating additional ripmaps); and storing the scaled representation of the element associated with the scale factor in the scaled representation cache (Newhall, col. 9, II. 32-52, step 340, storing, memory). Haveson and Newhall are analogous because they are directed at computer graphics. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Haveson and Newhall (Haveson--Newhall). One of the reasons would have been to provide repeated use of the same data without additional memory bandwidth of the external texture memory being utilized. For claim 20, Haveson- Newhall teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a processor of a device comprising a display component having a pixel density, the device comprising a scaled representation cache, a user scale factor and a scale factor set comprising scale factors identifying a scale factor value for a pixel density range of pixel densities stored as a pixel count per square area, the scale factor set comprising: Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 13 Art Unit: 2677 a first scale factor selected based on a first pixel density range comprising at least a first pixel density and a second pixel density (see claim 3 rejection); and a second scale factor selected based on a second pixel density range comprising at least a third pixel density and a fourth pixel density, generate a presentation having an element grid, the presentation comprising elements having a native size, by (see claims 3, 4, and 7 rejections): identifying a pixel density of the display component by querying the display component to report the pixel density (see claim 2 rejection); computing the pixel density of the display component as a pixel count per square area (see claim 11 rejection); for respective elements of the presentation: from a scale factor set, selecting a scale factor having a pixel density range including the pixel density of the display component (see claim 1 rejection), and the scale factor selected based on the user scale factor (see claim 10 rejection) and selected to size the elements according to the element grid of the presentation (see claims 7 and 8 rejections); querying the scaled representation cache for a scaled representation of the element associated with the scale factor (see claim 13 rejection); upon locating the scaled representation in the scaled representation cache, retrieving the scaled representation from the scaled representation cache (see claim 13 rejection); Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 14 Art Unit: 2677 upon failing to locate the scaled representation in the scaled representation cache: requesting the element to generate the scaled representation using the scale factor (see claim 13 rejection); and storing the scaled representation of the element associated with the scale factor in the scaled representation cache (see claim 13 rejection); displaying the presentation on the display component (see claim 13 rejection); upon receiving a request to present the presentation on a second pixel density that is different from the pixel density (see claim 17 rejection): for respective elements: identifying the second pixel density of the display component (see claim 17 rejection); from a scale factor set, select a second scale factor based on the second pixel density (see claim 17 rejection); and request the element to generate a second scaled representation using the second scale factor (see claim 17 rejection); generating a second presentation comprising the second scaled representations of the elements (see claim 17 rejection); and displaying the presentation on the display component (see claim 1 rejection). The same motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 13 applies equally to claim 20. Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 15 Art Unit: 2677 IV. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haveson as applied above, and further in view of Vale et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2004/0075671 hereinafter Vale). For claim 15, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1: Haveson does not teach, but Vale teaches: the presentation having at least two presentation contexts (Vale, 1] original sized content and scaled content); and generating the presentation comprising: while the presentation is in a first presentation context, generating the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements( Vale, 1] scaling); and while the presentation is in a second presentation context, generating the presentation comprising unscaled representations of the elements (Vale, 1] zooming (interpreted to include generating/returning to unscaled |evel)). Haveson and Vale are analogous because they are directed at image scaling. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Haveson and Vale (Haveson- Vale). One of the reasons would have been to provide a scaling method that is applicable to various devices other than a traditional computer display to increase usability of the images (Vale, 11 For claim 16, Haveson- Vale teaches the method of claim 15: Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 16 Art Unit: 2677 the first presentation context comprising a touch-responsive presentation of the display component that is responsive to fingertip input of a fingertip of a user (Vale, 1] [0018], touch sensitive); the scale factors selected to scale touch-responsive elements of the touch- responsive presentation to facilitate fingertip input (Vale, 1] [0024], scaling); and the second presentation context comprising a touch--unresponsive presentation of the display component (Vale, 1] [0024], original sized images are interpreted to mean touch--unresponsive presentation). The same motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 15 applies equally to claim 16. V. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haveson as applied above, and further in view of Fullerton et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2008/0030425 hereinafter Fullerton). For claim 18, Haveson teaches the method of claim 1. Haveson does not teach, but Fullerton teaches: the display component accessible to a second device in communication with the device (Fullerton, Fig. 4, 11 [0037], second display); identifying the pixel density comprising: receiving the pixel density of the display component from the second device (Fullerton, Fig. 7, 1) [0049], step 702); and the instructions configured to send the presentation to the second device to be displayed on the display component (Fullerton, Fig. 7, 1] [0049], steps 703-705). Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 17 Art Unit: 2677 Haveson and Fullerton are analogous because they are directed at controlling display devices. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Haveson and Fullerton (Haveson-Fullerton). One of the reasons would have been to provide controlling a data processing system having multiple displays with different scale factors different pixel resolutions) (Fullerton, 11 Application/Control Number: 13/230,445 Page 18 Art Unit: 2677 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270- 3982. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. -- 5:00 p.m. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kee Tung can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. NGUYENI Examiner, Art Unit 2677 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677