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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art 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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh (U.S. Publication 2017/0310901) in view of Liu (U.S. Publication 2021/0334533), Chen (U.S. Publication 2011/0310295) and Holcomb (U.S. Publication 2006/0233258).
As to claim 1, Sheikh discloses one or more processors (fig. 10, element 1045; p. 13, section 0122; p. 13, section 0126-p. 14, section 0127), comprising circuitry to use an amount of change of one or more first pixels between frames to determine to track an amount of motion of one or more first pixels from one frame to another frame (p. 9, section 0078; p. 11, section 0099; motion is tracked using changes from one reference frame to another non-reference frame; the motion is tracked on a pixel basis for each moving object);
determine, based on pixel motion of the one or more pixels, to constrain an amount by which the one or more first pixels are able to change when blending the one or more first pixels with one or more second pixels (p. 11, section 0103; blending weights are determined based on the amount of motion, and frame pixels are constrained from blending with and changing the other frame’s pixels if too much motion exists; examiner notes that this is consistent with applicant’s description of constraining/clamping in section 0047 of applicant’s specification, wherein frame contributions are discarded when too much motion/change is detected).
Sheikh does not explicitly disclose, but Liu discloses that the beginning of motion tracking is in response to a change between frames meeting or exceeding a threshold (fig. 3a; p. 3, sections 0075-0076; p. 5, sections 0098-0105; based on RGB or gray level change between a first and second frame being greater than a threshold, a motion frame is determined, and motion is tracked until a certain number of still frames is detected, at which point motion tracking stops). The motivation for this is to identify objects in multiple frames (p. 1, section 0004). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh to have the beginning of motion tracking be in response to a change between frames meeting or exceeding a threshold in order to identify objects in multiple frames as taught by Liu.
Sheikh does not explicitly disclose, but Chen discloses determining whether the change of the one or more first pixels is associated or unassociated with a motion vector; and as a result of the change being associated with the motion vector, determine, based on pixel motion of the one or more pixels, to constrain an amount by which the one or more first pixels are able to change (figs. 26-27; p. 6, section 0108-p. 7, section 0118; p. 7, sections 0130-0144; it is determined based on a reliability calculation, whether pixels are associated with a motion vector, or whether the motion vector matching blocks are too unreliable to use i.e. whether the motion vector really represents motion of an object and associated pixels; based on the motion vector reliably existing, a weighted motion vector component is applied that constrains change of the pixel; for example, in fig. 27, without the use of points C and D, the interpolated pixel can be any value between points A and B, which may have no relation to each other as same-location points in adjacent frames; with a valid motion vector, points C and D, which should be somewhat similar as an object pixel moves from point C to point D in the sequence, are used to constrain a pixel to have a value corresponding to the same object in consecutive frames). Motivation for this is to balance between artifacts and judder affecting an image sequence (p. 1, sections 0012-0013). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh and Liu to determine whether the luminance change of the one or more first pixels is associated or unassociated with a motion vector; and as a result of the luminance change being associated with the motion vector, determine, based on pixel motion of the one or more pixels, to constrain an amount by which the one or more first pixels are able to change in order to balance between artifacts and judder affecting an image sequence as taught by Chen.
Sheikh does not disclose, but Holcomb discloses that the amount of change is an amount of luminance change (p. 8-9, section 0108; to determine whether motion exists, an amount of change in luminance values between a reference frame and a following predicted frame is compared to a threshold). Further, Sheikh does not disclose, but Holcomb discloses the luminance change being determined, at least in part, by sampling one or more jitter locations of the one or more first pixels (p. 8-9, section 0108; p. 10, sections 0121-0125; fitness metrics based on differences are calculated using luminance change at sampled locations within a pixel; the sampled locations are offset from the center of the pixel, reading on jitter locations). The motivation for this is to increase probability of finding a match between frames (p. 7, sections 0095-0096). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh, Liu, and Chen to determine the luminance change, at least in part, by sampling one or more jitter locations of the one or more first pixels in order to increase probability of finding a match between frames as taught by Holcomb.
As to claim 7, see the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 19, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Sheikh discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions to cause processors to execute the method (p. 1-2, section 0011).
As to claim 25, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Sheikh discloses memory for storing data for the pixel motion of the one or more first pixels from one frame to a another (p. 6, sections 0063-0065; motion estimation is part of tracking data, which is stored in a buffer memory).
As to claim 31, Sheikh discloses wherein the circuitry is further to selectively perform clamping with anti-aliasing of one or more first pixels based, at least in part, on the pixel motion of the one or more first pixels from the one frame to the other frame (p. 8, section 0074; p. 9, section 0081; p. 11, section 0103; aliasing cancellation/anti-aliasing is achieved through blending of frames; clamping, by way of disallowing or reducing blending of some frames, is performed based on the determination of motion from one frame’s pixels to another).
As to claim 32, Sheikh discloses wherein to constrain includes adjusting blending weights based, at least in part, on the pixel motion (p. 7, section 0070; constraining includes weights of blending being adjusted based on motion present in the frame).
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 14-16, 20-22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh, Liu, Chen, and Holcomb and further in view of Young (U.S. Publication 2018/0357749) and Fuetterling (U.S. Publication 2019/0340812).
As to claim 2, Sheikh does not disclose, but Young does disclose wherein the circuitry is further to store color values for one or more fixed jitter locations to a grid of cells in temporal frame buffers for the one or more first pixels (fig. 5, element 510). While not explicitly disclosed, it would be known in the art to store in temporal frame buffers to be compatible with common GPU hardware. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh, Liu, Chen, and Holcomb to store color values for one or more fixed jitter locations to a grid of cells in temporal frame buffers for the one or more pixels as taught by Young in order to use common GPU hardware.
Young does not disclose that these previous frame images are stored in textures, but Fuetterling does disclose this (p. 12, sections 0138-0139). The motivation for this is to allow sampling of the previous frame. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh, Liu, Chen, Holcomb, and Young to store previous frame images in textures in order to allow sampling of the previous frame as taught by Fuetterling.
As to claim 3, Sheikh discloses wherein the circuitry is further to determine the pixel motion of the one or more first pixels from the one frame to the other frame in part by comparing color values for one or more first images to prior color values stored for one or more second images and determining whether to apply clamping to the prior color values (p. 5, section 0061; p. 9, section 0078; p. 11, section 0099; motion is tracked using changes from one reference frame to another non-reference frame; the motion is tracked on a pixel basis for each moving object; clamping, by way of disallowing or reducing blending of some frames, is performed based on the determination of motion from one frame’s pixels to another; color values for prior frames in the sliding window are stored in a buffer to enable the comparison). Further, Fuetterling discloses storing prior values to the textures, as noted in the rejection to claim 2. Motivation to combine the references is also given in the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 4, Sheikh does not disclose, but Fuetterling discloses wherein the circuitry is further to utilize motion vectors for at least a subset of the one or more first pixels to determine the prior color values to compare to the color values for the one or more first images (p. 13, sections 0150-0152; motion vectors are used to compare the previous frame color values to next frame color values). The motivation for this is to enable image reprojection with faithful reproduction of geometry and make shading and antialiasing more efficient (p. 1, section 0002). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Sheikh, Liu, Chen, Holcomb, and Young to utilize motion vectors for at least a subset of the one or more first pixels to determine the prior color values to compare to the color values for the one or more first images in order to enable image reprojection with faithful reproduction of geometry and make shading and antialiasing more efficient as taught by Fuetterling.
As to claim 8, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 9, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 14, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 15, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 16, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 20, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 21, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 22, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 26, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 27, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 28, see the rejection to claim 4.
Claims 5, 11, 17, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh in view of Liu, Chen, Holcomb, Young, and Fuetterling and further in view of Leblanc (U.S. Publication 2018/0144507).
As to claim 5, Young discloses wherein the color values to be stored are luminance values (p. 8, section 0085; values can be black or white, corresponding to 0 or 1 luminance, respectively). Young does not disclose that the values are stored to textures, but Fuetterling does disclose this as noted in the rejection to claim 2. Young does not disclose, but Leblanc does disclose wherein the color values to be stored are values determined from pixel neighborhoods centered around the one or more fixed jitter locations for the one or more first pixels (fig. 4; fig. 7; fig. 9; p. 4, sections 0048-0054; p. 6, sections 0064-0070; the color values from pixels closest to the center of the jitter/sampling location neighborhood are stored and used to calculate a color value). The motivation for this is to smooth without artifacts or too large computing requirements (p. 1, sections 0004-0005). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh, Liu, Chen, Holcomb, Young, and Fuetterling to determine color values to be stored from pixel neighborhoods centered around jitter locations in order to smooth without artifacts or too large computing requirements as taught by Leblanc.
As to claim 11, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 17, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 23, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 29, see the rejection to claim 5.
Claims 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiekh in view of Liu, Chen, and Holcomb and further in view of Xiao (U.S. Publication 2020/0043122).
As to claim 6, Sheikh does not disclose, but Xiao does disclose wherein the circuitry further to use one or more neural networks to generate one or more first images based at least in part upon the pixel motion of the one or more first pixels from the one frame to the other frame (p. 14, section 0144; p. 15, section 0148; p. 18, section 0180-p. 19, section 0182; GPUs implementing a neural networks are used to produce images based on motion vectors, which include a magnitude/amount, between two frames). The motivation for this is to improve speed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh, Liu, Chen, and Holcomb to use one or more neural networks to generate the one or more first images based at least in part upon the amount by which the one or more pixels has changed from one frame to another in order to improve speed as taught by Xiao.
As to claim 12, see the rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 18, see the rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 24, see the rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 30, see the rejection to claim 6.
wherein the amount by which the one or more first pixels are able to change is based on prior color values of the one or more first pixels clamped against a color convex hull.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh, Liu, Chen, and Holcomb and further in view of Vogels (U.S. Publication 2018/0293711)
As to claim 33, Sheikh does not disclose but Vogels discloses wherein the amount by which the one or more first pixels are able to change is based on prior color values of the one or more first pixels clamped against a color convex hull (p. 9, sections 0107-0109; weights are chosen such that the amount of change in a pixel is limited to the colors in the pixel neighborhood clamped to values defining a convex hull). The motivation for this is to avoid potential artifacts such as color shifts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheikh, Liu, Chen, and Holcomb to have the amount by which the one or more first pixels are able to change based on prior color values of the one or more first pixels clamped against a color convex hull in order to avoid potential artifacts such as color shifts as taught by Vogels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights