Scaling based on pixel density (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST

  • In 2013, this Patent Application has received a final rejection by the US Patent Office.

    The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.

    An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination (RCE), which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.

    In this application, applicant requested RCE and proposed amendments to the claims. The application received another non-final rejection to which applicant responded with another amendment narrowing the claims further. According to the examiner this placed the application in condition for allowance.

    Accordingly, the office issued a notice of allowance and on 01/13/2015 the application was granted US Patent No. 8,933,971.

    Thanks to the YOU, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. Follow @askpatents to block more overly-broad patent applications.

    TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations

    • Publication Number: US 20130063492 A1
    • App Number: 13/230445
    • Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
    • Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior Art predating Sept 12, 2011
    • Availability for Challenge: Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013

    Summary: This application generates and display graphical elements based on pixel density. The invention selects a scale factor from a scale factor set that is within the range of the pixel density.

    Claim 1 requires, among other things:

    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;

      • 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; and

        • request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and

      • generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.

    Sample figure

    WHY IT MATTERS - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.

    QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before 09/12/2011 that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?

    If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.

    For details about what makes good prior art, please see our FAQ. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the Ask Patents community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

    If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.

    Thanks for participating!

    I looked at the revised claims on the USPTO website and they still look worth challenging. Should this be done by amending this question or posting a new one?

    Just thought I'd mention that this application has now (as of 2013-09-18) had a final rejection, in case someone wants to edit the top section of this question accordingly.

    I have a Question . Why do we need to have different images at different resolutions , and then resizing the closest available image ..? Where we can just resize the original Image everytime as the resolution changes ?

    Because it's more efficient to start from a smallish image if you need a small one. You may also want to look up "mipmapping" from the 3D graphics world.

    Just find out this patent is finally issued on 01-13-2015.

  • Official USPTO Prior Art

    This Patent Application received a non-final rejection by the US Patent Office! The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community in this answer!

    "Writing DPI-Aware Win32 Applications", an article by Ryan Haveson and Ken Sykes, published by Microsoft and dated September 2008.

    Some of the terminology is different; Pixel Density is referred to as DPI (dots per inch, where a dot is a pixel).

    Notice on page 15, the sections "Multiple Resolution Support" and "Closest Fit", appears to disclose what 13/230445 calls "scaling sets." Vis.:

    The multiple resolution support technique requires that you provide your graphics at multiple resolutions so that you have a version that renders well at for each targeted DPI setting, such as 96, 120, 144, and 192. In this case, these values are equivalent to 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200% of the baseline DPI setting of 96. At run time, your application’s logic first determines the correct DPI scaling factor, and then uses it to determine which resolution of the graphics to use.


    For example, if the current custom DPI setting is 132 and you have provided multiple resolution graphics for 96, 120, and 144 DPI, you would first load the graphic that has slightly greater resolution to the current DPI. In this case, you would first load the 144 DPI version of the graphic. You would then scale it down to render well at 132 DPI.

    The patent applies a scaling factor picked from a set of factors and picked without regard for the output. So if the DPI of the images is between X and Y it applies a certain scaling factor, if between Y and Z it applies a different one. As best I can see what you cited as been in IE since 2000 - see IE6 (basic zoom function). There are no sets. Is there a page you think discloses scaling sets?

    Yes, page 15. I have edited my answer to call this out

    Thanks for the article explaining your process - I've been inspired to join

    Looking at their rebuttal they emphasise that theirs disallows scaling: "...avoid the artifacts of scaling by limiting the model to a small, selected set of DPIs. ...the device *only* requests elements matching one of the small set of selected DPIs." If it comes back around, it may be worth pointing out that KDE has been doing pretty much exactly this via vector icons for years.

    How is the patent in question fundamentally different than mipmapping? Ref: - a technique that I first heard of in games at least in the 90s?

    The patent was minorly ammended and resubmitted for consideration on 7/11/2013. I wouldn't consider the amendments to be sufficient, but it's worth remembering that this defeat is not final.

    I wanted to read the rejection but it’s fairly cumbersome to get to it and read it via the USPTO interface. So I downloaded and stitched it into a PDF for my own reading. For anyone else who is equally interested, I have uploaded this PDF to

    I'm not sure if this would apply as prior art, but back in the 90s, Microsoft had the Multi Resolution Bitmap (MRB) graphic file format. It was kind of like a .ico. It basically had multiple resolutions of a .bmps in it, I believe (I don't have my book handy, but it's documented in my book `Windows Undocumented File Formats`, which is almost as old as MRBs). Anyway, I believe those could be scaled inside of .HLP help files (also documented in my book). So that would have been a good 12-15 years prior to 2008, I bet.

    It's a little over a year later, but have you checked it since? Looks like it's being issued.

    Did you know that even a "Final Rejection" from the USPTO is not actually final? In this case, the patent actually ended up being issued, a little over a year after its "Final Rejection". Here it is: The claims have a few more specifics in them, responding to the examiner's reasoning on the original application, but I'm not sure the end result is materially less broad.

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM