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 Amendment
Received 06/10/2026
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 20 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 has/have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 21-23 has/have been added.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 06/10/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 07/15/2023
Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; as expressed below.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 11, ¶ 3 to Page 12, ¶ 1), “These operations are materially different from the claimed ‘interpolat[ing] color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the retrieved image’ as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. These claims require interpolating color information for pixels of a media plane ‘based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the retrieved image.’ Ji does not teach or suggest deriving color information for pixels of a media plane based upon color information of pixels of the retrieved image. Rather, Ji first identifies fragments generated from explicit surfaces of a volumetric model and computes rendering colors for those fragments. Ji then determines accumulation weights based upon characteristics of the volumetric visualization, including fragment spatial positions within the volumetric model and attenuation calculations associated with light propagation through the volumetric model. The rendering colors are subsequently weighted, accumulated, normalized, and blended to generate a volumetric visualization … Thus, Ji's operations are based on rendering colors associated with volumetric-model fragments, attenuation-related weighting factors, fragment positions within a volumetric model, and accumulated fragment rendering colors, rather than ‘based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the retrieved image’ as expressly required by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Accordingly, Ji does not teach or suggest as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the combination as a while, wherein the “retrieved image” limitation in relation to “… based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the retrieved image” is taught by Rodriguez et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210142058 A1) (Rodriguez; [¶ 0027 and ¶ 0029-0032]). In addition, the teachings of Dorbie (US Patent No. 6369814 B1) further modify Rodriguez et al. to incorporate interpolating color information of a media plane based upon color information of an image (Dorbie; [Col.3, lines 29-0038 and Col. 7, lines 35-67]). This combination is further modified by Ji et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230082349 A1) teach interpolating color information based upon color information of pixels.
Furthermore, Rodriguez et al. in view of Ji et al. teaches interpolation of color information of a plurality of pixels of a media plane based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of a retrieved image.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 12, ¶ 2 to Page 13, ¶ 2), that “Dorbie is directed to geometric distortion correction and image mapping. In particular, Dorbie back-projects three-dimensional points from a display surface onto a display plane and maps image information using projected points and corresponding texture coordinates. Dorbie's disclosure concerns geometric transformations and texture-based image mapping and does not disclose interpolating color information for pixels of a media plane based upon color information of pixels of an image. (Dorbie, col. 7, 11. 35-67). By contrast, Ji is directed to volumetric visualization and rendering. Ji rasterizes explicit surfaces into fragments, computes rendering colors for those fragments, and weights, accumulates, normalizes, and blends the fragment rendering colors to generate a volumetric visualization. Ji's operations are therefore performed on rendering colors associated with volumetric-model fragments rather than on color information of pixels of a retrieved image. See, e.g., Ji ¶¶ [0041]-[0042], [0050]-[0064], and [0072]-[0073].”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the combination as a whole, wherein the teachings of Dorbie are in further combination with the teaching of Ji et al. Wherein, Ji et al. teaches color projection and blended corresponding to a form of color interpolation, and Rodriguez et al. teaches image projection based on a retrieved image.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 13, ¶ 3 to Page 14, ¶ 2), that “Even assuming, arguendo, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dorbie and Ji, which Applicants do not concede, the Office Action does not adequately explain how or why such a combination would result in the claimed interpolation process. Incorporating Ji's fragment-based rendering operations into Dorbie's geometric image-mapping process would at most provide weighting and accumulation of rendering colors associated with volumetric-model fragments. It would not result in the claimed "interpolat[ing] color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the retrieved image" as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Indeed, neither Dorbie nor Ji discloses or suggests deriving color information for pixels of a media plane from color information of pixels of a retrieved image after projecting the media-plane pixels to corresponding two-dimensional points in the retrieved image. Rather, Dorbie is concerned with geometric mapping, while Ji is concerned with fragment-based volumetric rendering. The Office Action therefore does not adequately explain how or why the cited combination would produce the specific interpolation process required by the claims, namely, interpolating color information for pixels of a media plane at projected two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of a retrieved image.”
The Examiner disagrees. The media surfaces for presenting media content to viewers (as taught by Rodriguez et al.) (Rodriguez; [¶ 0014-0016], as illustrated within Fig. 1) involves mapping or projection of representative media content (Rodriguez; [¶ 0041 and ¶ 0051-0054], as illustrated within Fig. 7). Dorbie further builds on the teachings of Rodriguez et al., wherein a projector is utilized to design imaging (Dorbie; [Col. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 18 and Col. 7, line 35 to Col. 8, line 28]). Such that, distortion correction is provided for a surface (Dorbie; [Col. 8, line 36 to Col. 9, line 27]), which is beneficial to media content mapping onto the media surface (as taught by Rodriguez) (Rodriguez; [¶ 0021 and ¶ 0035-0036]). Still further, Ji et al. builds on the teachings of Rodriguez et al. as modified by Dorbie, wherein projection of image data upon a surface (Ji; [¶ 0040-0041 and ¶ 0067-0069]). Such that, alpha blending and transparency calculates light attenuation and reflection on surfaces (Ji; [¶ 0028-0030]), which is beneficial to imaging on a curved media surface (Rodriguez; [¶ 0014, ¶ 0019, and ¶ 0032]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments fail to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 14, ¶ 2), filed 08/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to claim 8’s similarity to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained for reasons as addressed above.
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 11:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 14, ¶ 3 to Page 15, ¶ 3), that “Moreover, with respect to dependent claims 4 and 11, Ji also fails to disclose or suggest the additional features recited by these dependent claims. These claims require interpolating color information by weighting and accumulating color information of a plurality of pixels of a retrieved image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the retrieved image. As explained in this Application, projected two-dimensional points are associated with sample kernel spaces within the retrieved image, and color information of image pixels situated within those sample kernel spaces is weighted and accumulated to determine color information for a corresponding pixel of the media plane. (See, e.g., Specification, " [0058]-[0060]). Ji does not disclose identifying pixels of a retrieved image that are situated within sample kernel spaces of the retrieved image. Rather, Ji identifies fragments generated from explicit surfaces of a volumetric model and computes rendering colors for those fragments. Ji's weighting and accumulation operations are performed on fragment rendering colors associated with a volumetric visualization process, not on color information of image pixels situated within sample kernel spaces of a retrieved image. (See Ji , ТП [0041]-[0042], [0050]-[0060], and [0072]-[0073]).
Furthermore, neither Ji's fragments, explicit surfaces, volumetric regions, nor points of view constitute a "sample kernel space" of a retrieved image, as required by claims 4, 11, and 17. The Office Action appears to equate Ji's fragments, surfaces, volumetric regions, and points of view with the claimed sample kernel spaces. However, Ji does not disclose a retrieved image having a plurality of sample kernel spaces from which image pixels are identified, selected, weighted, and accumulated. Rather, Ji's disclosures relate to fragments and regions associated with a volumetric model and corresponding volumetric-rendering operations. (See, e.g., Ji, 11 [0032], [0041]-[0045], [0050]- [0060], and [0072]-[0073]).
Accordingly, the generalized volumetric-model regions and points of view relied upon by the Office Action are fundamentally different from the claimed sample kernel spaces of a retrieved image.”
The Examiner disagrees. As addressed above, the teaching of a retrieved image is addressed by Rodriguez et al., still further Applicant fails to view the teachings of Rodriguez et al. Wherein, Rodiguez et al. sample kernel space corresponding to sample points of a POV (Rodiguez; [¶ 0029-0034]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 15-17:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 15, ¶ 4 to Page 16, ¶ 1), that “Claims 2, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie in view of Ji, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0238609 to Skupin et al. ("Skupin"). Without acquiescing to the merits of this allegation, Applicant has cancelled claim 16 rendering the rejection of this claim moot. Applicant contends the canceling of this claim does not give rise to any implication regarding whether Applicant agrees with or acquiesces to this rejection. Regarding the remaining claims, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and provides the following arguments to support patentability.
As discussed above, the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, and Ji does not render independent claims 1 and 8 obvious. Independent claim 15 is likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, and Ji for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 8 and further in view of its own respective features. Skupin does not provide the missing teachings or suggestions with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 nor does the Office Action so allege. Therefore, a combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin does not render these independent claims obvious. Dependent claims 2, 9, and 17 are likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin for at least the same reasons as the independent claim from which they respectively depend and further in view of their own respective features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claims 2, 9, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
The Examiner disagrees. For reasons as addressed above.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 16, ¶ 3 to Page 17, ¶ 1), that “Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie in view of Ji, as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0000988 to Nelson et al. ("Nelson"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and provides the following arguments to support patentability.
As discussed above, the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, and Ji does not render independent claims 1 and 8 obvious. Nelson does not provide the missing teachings or suggestions with respect to these independent claims nor does the Office Action so allege. Therefore, a combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, and Nelson does not render independent claims 1 and 8 obvious. Dependent claims 5 and 12 are likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, and Nelson for at least the same reasons as the independent claim from which they respectively depend and further in view of their own respective features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
The Examiner disagrees. For reasons as addressed above.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 17, ¶ 2-3), that “Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie in view of Ji in view of Skupin, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Nelson. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and provides the following arguments to support patentability. As discussed above, the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin does not render independent claim 15. Nelson does not provide the missing teachings or suggestions with respect to this independent claim nor does the Office Action so allege. Therefore, a combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, Skupin, and Nelson does not render independent claim 15 obvious. Dependent claim 18 is likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Rodriguez, Dorbie, Ji, Skupin, and Nelson for at least the same reasons as the independent claim from which they respectively depend and further in view of their own respective features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
The Examiner disagrees. For reasons as addressed above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al., US PGPUB No. 20210142058 A1, hereinafter Rodriguez, Dorbie, US Patent No. 6369814 B1, hereinafter Dorbie, and further in view of Ji et al., US PGPUB No. 20230082349 A1, hereinafter Ji.
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses an image processing server for transforming an image for projection onto a media plane of a venue (Rodriguez; an image processing server (i.e. central server and/or local/venue server) for transforming an image for projection onto a media plane of a venue [¶ 0016-0017 and ¶ 0063], as illustrated within Fig. 1; wherein, media plane(s) is/are a feature associated with the venue projection and are implicitly projected onto, given focal point(s) of the media planes (i.e. “… project content onto multiple focal points of the media planes”) [¶ 0067 and ¶ 0074]; additionally, media surfaces represent one or more surfaces that are provided with media content [¶ 0018] in relation with a venue [¶ 0019]), the image processing server comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Rodriguez; the image processing server [as addressed above] comprising a memory configured to store instructions [¶ 0110, ¶ 0114-0117], as illustrated within Fig. 16; moreover, CRM [¶ 0122]); and
a processor, configured to execute the instructions, the instructions, when executed by the processor (Rodriguez; the image processing server [as addressed above] comprising a processor (which is) configured to execute the instructions [¶ 0110-0111 and ¶ 0113] when executed by the processor [¶ 0122-0123], as illustrated within Fig. 16), configuring the processor to:
retrieve the image (Rodriguez; the processor [as addressed above] configured to: retrieve the image (i.e. media content) [¶ 0026-0027 and ¶ 0045-0046]; wherein, the media content is select (by a user) using the central server which relies on a processor to operate, thus the retrieval of media content using a processor is implicit [¶ 0078 and ¶ 0102-0105]; furthermore, media corresponding to images/video can be projected/transformed on media surfaces of a venue [¶ 0067 and ¶ 0077]; additionally, providing representative media content [¶ 0029]), project the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the retrieved image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the retrieved image (Rodriguez; project the implicit media plane (the media plane as address above) onto 2D coordinates of an image space of the retrieved image (i.e. media content) to provide a plurality of 2D points (i.e. visual guidance) that are projected onto the retrieved image (i.e. media content) [¶ 0027 and ¶ 0029]; moreover, visual guidance present on content on a media surface [¶ 0054-0055]; still further, key features correlating to sample points [¶ 0030-0033] in relation with 2D or 3D coordinates [¶ 0036]; additionally, presenting sample points provided on media surfaces [¶ 0034-0035], as illustrated within Figs. 5A-B).
Rodriguez fails to disclose project three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of pixels of the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the image, interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image, and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the venue to project the image onto the media plane.
However, Dorbie teaches to:
project three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of pixels of the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the image (Dorbie; project (i.e. back projection) 3D coordinates (of a display surface) of a plurality of pixels of the media plane (i.e. display plane) onto 2D coordinates of an image space (i.e. display plane) of the image (i.e. textured image) to provide a plurality of 2D points that are projected (i.e. back projected) onto the image (i.e. textured image) [Col. 7, lines 35-67], as illustrated within Figs. 2A and 2B; wherein, Fig. 2A illustrates, transformation stage 232 in relation with a back projection of dimensional points from a spherical dome surface onto a display plane; moreover, distortion corrections associated with non-linear display surface geometry and image mapping from texture coordinates [Col. 6, lines 36-55]; and moreover, a textured image [id.] further corresponds to a graphic image [Col. 6, lines 29-35 and Col. 6, line 56 to Col. 7, line 8]), interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image (Dorbie; interpolate/transform implicit color information of the plurality of pixels (given texture of an image) of the media plane (i.e. display plane) at the plurality of 2D points based upon implicit color information of a plurality of pixels (given texture of an image) of the image (i.e. texture image) [Col. 7, lines 35-67]; wherein, the transformation of data further corresponds to a mapping and/or modification of data [id.]; moreover, using points of a display and texture coordinates to map images to a display plane [Col. 3, lines 29-38]), and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the venue to project the image onto the media plane (Dorbie; provide the implicit color information of the plurality of pixels (given texture of an image) to the implicit venue (given a spherical dome display) to project the image onto the media plane (i.e. display plane) [Col. 8, lines 1-35]).
Rodriguez and Dorbie are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez, to incorporate to: project three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of pixels of the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the image, interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image, and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the venue to project the image onto the media plane (as taught by Dorbie), in order to provide improved distortion correction when rendering images induced by complex display systems (e.g. non-linear display surface geometry) (Dorbie; [Col. 1, line 28 to Col. 2, line 23 and Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 9]).
Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie fails to explicitly disclose color information; and by extension to: interpolate color information based upon color information of a plurality of pixels.
However, Ji teaches to: interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image (ji; interpolating (i.e. blending) color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane (i.e. image plane) at the plurality of 2D points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image [¶ 0041], as illustrated within Fig. 5; wherein, a graphics pipeline computes the closest and farthest fragment in a volumetric model from a POV for each pixel [¶ 0045 and ¶ 0048] in relation with rendering colors for each pixel and blending the rendering color together for each pixel to create a volumetric visualization [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0053]; moreover, alpha blending in relation with surfaces [¶ 0028]; additionally, there can be multiple image planes [¶ 0043]), and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the surface to project the image onto the media plane (Ji; provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the surface to project the image onto the media plane (i.e. image plane) [¶ 0041, ¶ 0045, and ¶ 0048]; additionally, the image is rendered based on an aggregate color of each section of the image plane [¶ 0032]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie, to incorporate to: interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image, and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the surface to project the image onto the media plane (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 1, wherein the color information of the plurality of pixels comprises luminance and chrominance components of YUV color model or red, green, and blue components of an RGB color model (Ji; the color information of the plurality of pixels comprises red, green, and blue components of an RGB color model [¶ 0037-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate the color information of the plurality of pixels comprises luminance and chrominance components of YUV color model or red, green, and blue components of an RGB color model (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, configures the processor to process the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the retrieved image (Rodriguez; when executed by the processor the instructions configures the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to process/calculate the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within a sample kernel space (corresponding to sample points of a POV) from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces (corresponding to another sample points of another POV) of the retrieved image [¶ 0029-0033]; moreover, presenting sample points provided on media surface [¶ 0034], as illustrated within Figs. 5A-B; and moreover, metrics from a POV are determined based on viewer location [¶ 0039-0041], as well as multiple POVs [¶ 0042]).
Dorbie further teaches a sample kernel space (Dorbie; a sample kernel space corresponding to an implicit region in relation with casted rays [Col. 7, lines 19-67], as illustrated by elements 224 and 232 within Fig. 2A as well as elements 232a and 232b within Fig. 2B; moreover, Fig. 2A illustrates, sampling corresponding to ray-casting 212-216 and points 226-230 within an implicit region; and moreover, Fig. 2B illustrates, sampling corresponding to rays and points within an implicit region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate a sample kernel space (as taught by Dorbie), in order to provide improved distortion correction when rendering images induced by complex display systems (e.g. non-linear display surface geometry) (Dorbie; [Col. 1, line 28 to Col. 2, line 23 and Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 9]).
Ji further teaches to interpolate color information of a pixel of the media plane from among the plurality of pixels of the media plane by weighting and accumulating the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the image (Ji; to interpolate color information of a pixel of the media plane [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] from among the plurality of pixels of the media plane by weighting and accumulating the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image [¶ 0053-0054 and ¶ 0056-0057] that are situated within a sample kernel space (given a POV and spatial region) from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces (given POVs and surfaces (e.g. spatial regions) inside the volumetric model) of the image [¶ 0053 and ¶ 0072-0073]; wherein, the surfaces (and fragments) of volumetric model are associated with a POV [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0040]; in other words, a sample kernel space corresponds to a surface/region within the volume model in accordance with a POV and a plurality of sample kernel spaces corresponds to other surfaces/regions within the volume model in accordance with other POVs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to interpolate color information of a pixel of the media plane from among the plurality of pixels of the media plane by weighting and accumulating the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the image (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 8 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 8 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 8. Although, claim 8 and claim 1 may not be identical, it is reasonable to reject claim 8 based on the prior art teachings and rational within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 10 is addressed within the rejection of claim 3, due to the similarities claim 10 and claim 3 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 3 regarding the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 11.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji as applied to claim(s) 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Skupin et al., US PGPUB No. 20190238609 A1, hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor to reconstruct the retrieved image from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image (Rodriguez; the processor to process the retrieved image from one or more implicit digital image signals (given the communication between a server and venue) that are associated with the image [¶ 0014 and ¶ 0016-0017]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji fails to explicitly disclose one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image.
However, Skupin teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor to reconstruct the retrieved image from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image (Skupin; the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor [¶ 0135-0139] to reconstruct the retrieved image [¶ 0044-0046] from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image [0013-0015]; moreover, streaming a video bitstream from a server [¶ 0016-0017]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Skupin are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor to reconstruct the retrieved image from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 9 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 9 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claims 1 & 2, due to the similarities claim 15 and claims 1 & 2 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claims 1 & 2 regarding the rejection of claim 15. Although, claim 15 and claims 1 & 2 may not be identical, it is reasonable to reject claim 15 based on the prior art teachings and rational within the rejections of claims 1 & 2. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claims 1 & 2 is/are addressed below.
Skupin teaches an image recording system configured to store one or more digital image that are associated with the image (Skupin; an image recording system (i.e. database) [¶ 0042] configured to store one or more digital image that are associated with the image [¶ 0045-0047]; wherein, image data is retrievable [¶ 0043-0044]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Skupin are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate an image recording system configured to store one or more digital image that are associated with the image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
(further refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 3, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 3 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 3 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 17. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 4 is/are addressed below.
Skupin teaches the reconstructed image (Skupin; the reconstructed image [¶ 0044-0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin, to incorporate the reconstructed image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 4)
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji as applied to claim(s) 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Nelson et al., US PGPUB No. 20020000988 A1, hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, configures the processor to process the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a surface (Rodriguez; when executed by the processor the instructions configures the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to process the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within the sample kernel space (corresponding to sample points of a POV) in accordance media surface [¶ 0029-0033]; moreover, presenting sample points provided on media surface [¶ 0034], as illustrated within Figs. 5A-B; and moreover, sampling in relation with POV [¶ 0040-0041]).
Ji further teaches to weight the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a function (Ji; to weight the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a function (i.e. Beer-Lambert absorption law) [¶ 0055-0057]; moreover, an accumulation weight is a parameter determined by a location within a model [¶ 0053-0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to weight the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a function (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji fails to disclose a probability density function.
Nelson further teaches to weigh the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a probability density function (Nelson; to weigh/calculate the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space [¶ 0094-0097] in accordance with a probability density function (corresponding to super-sampling) [¶ 0122-0126]; moreover, sample density within a region [¶ 0124-0126], as illustrated within Fig. 5A-B).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Nelson are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to weigh the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a probability density function (as taught by Nelson), in order to provide an improved image processing without the need for higher resource complexity (Nelson; [¶ 0005-0010 and ¶ 0016]; moreover, improved realism, reducing artifacts, and efficient rendering [¶ 0011-0014 and ¶ 0017]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 12 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 12.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Nelson.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 18. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 5 is/are addressed below.
Skupin teaches the reconstructed image (Skupin; the reconstructed image [¶ 0044-0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin, to incorporate the reconstructed image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 5)
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji as applied to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Furuya et al., US PGPUB No. 20180240254 A1, hereinafter Furuya.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 21 is addressed within the rejection of claim 23, due to the similarities claim 21 and claim 23 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 23 regarding the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 22 is addressed within the rejection of claim 23, due to the similarities claim 22 and claim 23 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 23 regarding the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing system of claim 15, the image processing server (Rodriguez; the image processing server [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Ji further teaches to derive the color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane from accumulated color information of the plurality of pixels of the image (Ji; to derive the color information of the plurality of pixels/fragments of the media plane from accumulated color information of the plurality of pixels/fragments of the image [¶ 0032 and ¶ 0037-0038]; additionally, blending with a weight parameter [¶ 0053] in relation with a z order projection [¶ 0041-0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to derive the color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane from accumulated color information of the plurality of pixels of the image (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji to derive the color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane from color information of the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image.
However, Furuya teaches to derive the color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane from weighted and accumulated color information of the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image (Furuya; to derive (through interpolation) the color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane from weighted and accumulated color information [¶ 0037-0039], as illustrated within Fig. 6, of the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image [¶ 0027 and ¶ 0029], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-C).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Furuya are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to derive the color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane from weighted and accumulated color information of the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image (as taught by Furuya), in order to provide an improved imaging that reduces moire/distortion (Furuya; [¶ 0002-0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(regarding color interpolation in relation with a media plane)
Sawada et al. (US PGPUB No. 20130278801 A1);
Powell et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230027452 A1);
Prentice et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190378246 A1);
Sugimori (US PGPUB No. 20030067548 A1);
Kano (US PGPUB No. 20130076938 A1);
Acharya et al. (US Patent No. 7053944 B1);
Moon et al. (US PGPUB No. 20060146151 A1);
Lu (US PGPUB No. 20150009407 A1); and
Kobayashi (US Patent No. 6714242 B1).
(regarding media projection)
Keshet et al. (US Patent No. 7418130 B2);
Ayala (US PGPUB No. 20090219381 A1); and
Hsu et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220020109 A1).
(regarding image plane)
Gallagher (US Patent No. 6778699 B1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, alternate Fridays 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights