DETAILED ACTION
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
The Amendment filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 8, 13 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 8, 13 and 24 recite “a) a parallel fetch of a left half and a right half of an original graphics image and b) a parallel merge of a left half and a right half of a compressed version of the original graphics image”, please clarify how and when to obtain compressed version from the original graphics image.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations 8-12 in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 8, 12-19, 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modrzyk U.S. Patent Application 20150356953 in view of Filippini U.S. Patent Application 20120098943, and further in view of Priel U.S. Patent Application 20150348514.
Regarding claim 1, Modrzyk discloses an apparatus for rotating a graphics layer, the apparatus comprising:
a memory (memory 3) configured for storing a video layer in a compressed format and the graphics layer in an uncompressed format (paragraph [0179]: three different input surfaces (layers) which are to be used to generate a composited output frame… the three input layers comprise one video layer, e.g. generated by a video processor (codec), and two graphics layers, e.g. two graphics windows generated by a graphics processing unit (GPU); paragraph [0056]: one or more of the input surfaces (video layer) is stored in an encoded and/or compressed form; paragraph [0046]: one or more input surfaces (graphics layer) may be generated by being appropriately rendered and stored into a memory (e.g. frame buffer) by a graphics processing system (a graphics processor)); and
a display processing unit (DPU) (display controller 5) coupled to the memory, and
for performing a graphics rotation on the original compressed graphics layer for generating a rotated compressed graphics layer, to be displayed onto a display (paragraph [0058]: the processing stage also or instead, and in an embodiment also, comprises a rotation stage operable to rotate one or more surfaces; paragraph [0161]: In this embodiment, the compression stage may be operated to generate a compressed output surface (for display on the local display), which may then be modified (e.g. rotated and/or scaled) by the processing stage, before being output to external memory; paragraph [0212]: the (DSC) compressed image can be both displayed and written back by the first display controller 52, to be fetched and displayed by the second display controller 54);
parallel fetch original graphics images (paragraph [0219]: multiple video and graphics layers (generated by GPUs and video decoders) need to be fetched from memory and composed).
Modrzyk discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Modrzyk fails to disclose converting the graphics layer into an original compressed graphics layer explicitly, and the graphics layer is overlay data to be displayed onto a video display, and wherein the converting the graphics layer includes a) a parallel fetch of a left half and a right half of an original graphics image and b) a parallel merge of a left half and a right half of a compressed version of the original graphics image.
Filippini discloses converting the graphics layer into an original compressed graphics layer (paragraph [0043]: the input image is modified to obtain a new image that is encoded for the 3-dimensional display mode (Step 206)), and
wherein the converting the graphics layer includes a) a parallel fetch of a left half and a right half of an original graphics image and b) a parallel merge of a left half and a right half of a compressed version of the original graphics image (paragraph [0043]: FIG. 2B, all of the odd columns of the original image (250) are used to generate the left half of the modified image (260) and all of the even columns of the original image (250) are used to generate the right half of the modified image (260); paragraph [0047]: when the left half (512) of the combined image is combined with the right half (514) of the combined image, the resulting visualization D1 (516) includes "CARTOONS" as originally depicted in the non-encoded image (304); Filippini’s teaching of combining left and right half of image can be combined with Modrzyk’s device, such that to fetch and generate a rotated compressed graphics layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display.
Modrzyk as modified by Filippini discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini fails to disclose the graphics layer is overlay data to be displayed onto a video display explicitly.
Priel discloses the graphics layer is overlay data to be displayed onto a video display (paragraph [0016]: FIG. 5 shows an example fill status of an external memory display buffer with compressed and uncompressed overlay graphics data during an example use in displaying video with overlay graphics according to an example of the invention; paragraph [0064]: Once compression is complete, the compressed video may be transferred to the overlay unit 430 for overlaying the uncompressed video (that may be transferred to the overlay unit 430 in the usual way, as shown and described above in relation to FIG. 4), by operation of a compressed graphics data load path portion 442; see fig. 9A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 2, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the graphics rotation is an orthogonal rotation (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0058]: The rotation stage may be operable to rotate one or more of the input surfaces by any suitable and desired amount, such as, for example 90°).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 3, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the DPU is further configured to generate a rotated video layer for performing a video rotation on the video layer (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0058]: the processing stage also or instead, and in an embodiment also, comprises a rotation stage operable to rotate one or more surfaces, in an embodiment one or more of the (optionally decoded and/or decompressed) input surfaces, e.g. to generate one or more rotated input surfaces; paragraph [0117]: the stored output surface is subjected to (at least) rotation and/or scaling by the display controller or the second display controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 4, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the DPU is further configured to generate a composite rotated image by combining the rotated compressed graphics layer and the rotated video layer (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0058]: it is necessary and/or desired to rotate one or more of the input surfaces (windows), e.g. prior to compositing; paragraph [0179]: three different input surfaces (layers) which are to be used to generate a composited output frame… the three input layers comprise one video layer, e.g. generated by a video processor (codec), and two graphics layers, e.g. two graphics windows generated by a graphics processing unit (GPU)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 5, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a video display coupled to the DPU, the video display configured to display the composite rotated image (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0058]: the processing stage also or instead, and in an embodiment also, comprises a rotation stage operable to rotate one or more surfaces, in an embodiment one or more of the (optionally decoded and/or decompressed) input surfaces, e.g. to generate one or more rotated input surfaces; paragraph [0117]: the stored output surface is subjected to (at least) rotation and/or scaling by the display controller or the second display controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Claim 8 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1 as apparatus steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 1 applies to the apparatus steps of claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 2 as apparatus steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 2 applies to the apparatus steps of claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 1 applies to the method steps of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the graphics layer is in an uncompressed format (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0179]: three different input surfaces (layers) which are to be used to generate a composited output frame… the three input layers comprise one video layer, e.g. generated by a video processor (codec), and two graphics layers, e.g. two graphics windows generated by a graphics processing unit (GPU); paragraph [0046]: one or more input surfaces may be generated by being appropriately rendered and stored into a memory (e.g. frame buffer) by a graphics processing system (a graphics processor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 15, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the original compressed graphics layer is in a compressed format (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0179]: three different input surfaces (layers) which are to be used to generate a composited output frame… the three input layers comprise one video layer, e.g. generated by a video processor (codec), and two graphics layers, e.g. two graphics windows generated by a graphics processing unit (GPU); paragraph [0056]: one or more of the input surfaces is stored in an encoded and/or compressed form; Filippini’s paragraph [0043]: the input image is modified to obtain a new image that is encoded for the 3-dimensional display mode (Step 206)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Claim 16 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 3 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 3 applies to the method steps of claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 4 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 4 applies to the method steps of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising delivering the composite rotated image to a video display (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0037]: The rotated and/or scaled output surface is stored in main memory 3 (e.g. frame buffer 4), before being read by a second display controller 11, and displayed on the external display 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 19, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising generating the video layer in the compressed format (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0179]: three different input surfaces (layers) which are to be used to generate a composited output frame… the three input layers comprise one video layer, e.g. generated by a video processor (codec), and two graphics layers, e.g. two graphics windows generated by a graphics processing unit (GPU); paragraph [0056]: one or more of the input surfaces is stored in an encoded and/or compressed form).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Regarding claim 21, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising generating the graphics layer in the uncompressed format (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0046]: one or more input surfaces may be generated by being appropriately rendered and stored into a memory (e.g. frame buffer) by a graphics processing system (a graphics processor)… one or more input surfaces may be generated by being appropriately decoded and stored into a memory (e.g. frame buffer) by a video codec).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk’s to combine images as taught by Filippini, to generate rendered output frames for display; and combine Modrzyk and Filippini’s to overlay graphics as taught by Priel, to process and display video data with overlay graphic data.
Claim 23 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 2 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 2 applies to the method steps of claim 23.
Claim 24 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 1 applies to the medium steps of claim 24.
Claim 25 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 3 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 3 applies to the medium steps of claim 25.
Claim 26 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 4 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 4 applies to the medium steps of claim 26.
Claim 6, 9, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modrzyk U.S. Patent Application 20150356953 in view of Filippini U.S. Patent Application 20120098943, in view of Priel U.S. Patent Application 20150348514, and further in view of Andandan U.S. Patent Application 20210006801.
Regarding claim 6, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini and Priel fails to disclose the compressed format is a Universal Bandwidth Compression (UBWC) format.
Andandan discloses the compressed format is a Universal Bandwidth Compression (UBWC) format (paragraph [0029]: a compression algorithm, such as, for example, universal bandwidth compression (UBWC)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk, Filippini and Priel’s to use UBWC as taught by Andandan, to control bus bandwidth.
Claim 9 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 6 as apparatus steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 6 applies to the apparatus steps of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini, Priel and Andandan discloses the apparatus of claim 9, further comprising:
means for generating a rotated video layer by performing a video rotation on the video layer (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0058]: the processing stage also or instead, and in an embodiment also, comprises a rotation stage operable to rotate one or more surfaces, in an embodiment one or more of the (optionally decoded and/or decompressed) input surfaces, e.g. to generate one or more rotated input surfaces; paragraph [0117]: the stored output surface is subjected to (at least) rotation and/or scaling by the display controller or the second display controller); and
means for generating a composite rotated image by combining the rotated compressed graphics layer and the rotated video layer (Modrzyk’s paragraph [0058]: it is necessary and/or desired to rotate one or more of the input surfaces (windows), e.g. prior to compositing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk, Filippini and Priel’s to use UBWC as taught by Andandan, to control bus bandwidth.
Claim 20 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 6 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 6 applies to the method steps of claim 20.
Claim 7, 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modrzyk U.S. Patent Application 20150356953 in view of Filippini U.S. Patent Application 20120098943, in view of Priel U.S. Patent Application 20150348514, in view of Andandan U.S. Patent Application 20210006801, and further in view of STRÖM U.S. Patent Application 20190373233.
Regarding claim 7, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini, Priel and Andandan discloses all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. However, Modrzyk as modified by Filippini, Priel and Andandan fails to disclose the uncompressed format is a linear RGB (red green blue) format.
STRÖM discloses the uncompressed format is a linear RGB (red green blue) format (paragraph [0043]: After decoding, also referred to as decompression herein, the 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 sequences are upsampled to 4:4:4, inverse color transformed and finally a transfer function gives back pixels of linear RGB light that can be output on a monitor for display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modrzyk, Filippini, Priel and Andandan’s to use linear RGB as taught by STRÖM, to improve luminance values of pixels in a computational efficient way.
Claim 10 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 7 as apparatus steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 7 applies to the apparatus steps of claim 10.
Claim 22 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 7 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 7 applies to the method steps of claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claim 1, 8, 13 and 24 have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modrzyk U.S. Patent Application 20150356953 in view of Filippini U.S. Patent Application 20120098943, and further in view of Priel U.S. Patent Application 20150348514, as outlined above.
Applicant argues on page 9-13 that cited references cannot disclose “a) a parallel fetch of a left half and a right half of an original graphics image and b) a parallel merge of a left half and a right half of a compressed version of the original graphics image”.
In reply, the rejection is based on Modrzyk, Filippini and Priel combined. Filippini discloses converting the graphics layer includes a) a parallel fetch of a left half and a right half of an original graphics image and b) a parallel merge of a left half and a right half of a compressed version of the original graphics image (paragraph [0043]: FIG. 2B, all of the odd columns of the original image (250) are used to generate the left half of the modified image (260) and all of the even columns of the original image (250) are used to generate the right half of the modified image (260); paragraph [0047]: when the left half (512) of the combined image is combined with the right half (514) of the combined image, the resulting visualization D1 (516) includes "CARTOONS" as originally depicted in the non-encoded image (304)). Filippini’s teaching of combining left and right half of image can be combined with Modrzyk’s device, such that to fetch and generate a rotated compressed graphics layer.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yi Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-9589. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 571-272-7642. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YI YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights