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 .
Prior arts Cited in this office action:
Surti et al. (US 20180308211 A1, hereinafter “Surti”)
Harris (US 5394523, hereinafter “Harris”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the location identifier is configured to indicate to an image decoder device that a component of the image color data is one of compressed as part of a previous block, begins a first sized block, begins a second sized block, is a first constant value, or is a second constant value” it is not clear to the office what kind of block applicant is referring to in the claim and what applicant is trying to claim based on the wording. Compressed as part of a previous block, previous block of what? Is it a block of bits, images, pixels, colors, etc. appropriate explanation and/or correction is respectfully requested.
Claims 6, 12, 21, and 23 contains similar limitation and are therefore rejected on the same ground as claim 4.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5,7-11, 13-20, 22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surti et al. (US 20180308211 A1, hereinafter “Surti”) in view of Harris (US 5394523, hereinafter “Harris”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9:
Surti teaches A method performed by a processing system of a computing device for image compression (Surti [0142]-[0143], fig. 9, where Surti teaches in one embodiment the pixel processor 922 can be configured with multisample compression logic such that only unique sample color values are output for a pixel), comprising:
identifying locations of image color data of a portion of an image within a
portion of a memory in an interleaved format (Surti [0012], [0031], [0133],[0136]-[0137], [0142]-[0148], figs 8, where Surti teaches to restrain bandwidth consumption, various forms of compression can be used. When lossless color compression techniques are implemented for a multisample render target, storing the samples in an interleaved manner can increase the efficiency of such techniques in comparison to planar techniques of storing sample data); and
encoding a metadata with a location identifier configured to describe the locations of the image color data of the portion of the image within the portion of the memory in the interleaved format (Surti [0143]-[0144], where, Surti teaches compression metadata 902 for the MSAA render target 912 is stored in memory to indicate the compression status for one or more portions (e.g., tiles) of the MSAA render target 912. In one embodiment if the compression 928 logic can compress a data tile of the MSAA render target 912 without loss of data, the data tile is stored in memory in a compressed format and the compression metadata 902 for the tile is updated to indicate that the tile is compressed. Additionally, the compression metadata 902 can also be used to map stored color data to multiple samples of a pixel).
Harris teaches similar limitations such as A pixel's attributes may describe its color, intensity and location, for example. Thus, to change the color, intensity or location of a pixel, one simply changes the digital values for that particular attribute (Harris col. 1 lines 36-40, col. 8 lines 38-55). there are numerous ways that to organize pixel memory. These include component interleaved, component planar, or bit planar, tiled, and hierarchical versions of the these. The list of possibilities is constantly expanding (col. 23 lines 46-col 24 line 6).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Surti and Harris as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, to identify the location of the color in the image in the interleave memory and encode a metadata with the location identifier, in order for the system to be used by general-purpose graphics processing unit
Regarding claims 2 and 10:
Surti in view of Harris teaches wherein encoding the metadata with the location identifier comprises encoding image data format agnostic metadata (Surti [0012], [0031], [0136]-[0137], [0142]-[0148], figs 8).
Regarding claims 3 and 11:
Surti in view of Harris teaches further comprising generating the location identifier based on the locations of the image color data of the portion of the image within the portion of the memory in the interleaved format (Surti [0012], [0031], [0136]-[0137], [0142]-[0148], figs 8).
Regarding claims 5 and 13:
Surti in view of Harris teaches wherein the location identifier is configured to indicate to an image decoder device that all components of the image color data are a constant value (Surti [0135], [0143], where Surti teaches If a single value is present for all samples, only a single value is stored in a single plane. Before a final image is output, an MSAA resolve operation is performed on the tile in which the color values for each sample of a pixel are combined. If only a single value is stored for a pixel, the resolve operation uses the single value. In one embodiment, if multiple different color values are stored for differing samples for a pixel, the color values may be averaged).
Regarding claims 7 and 14:
Surti in view of Harris teaches wherein the image color data of the portion of the image within the portion of the memory in the interleaved format includes compressed image color data for at least one component of the image color data (Surti [0012], [0031], [0136]-[0137], [0142]-[0148], figs 8).
Regarding claims 8 and 15:
Surti in view of Harris teaches wherein the image color data of the portion of the image within the portion of the memory in the interleaved format includes a plurality of components of the image color data such that each of the plurality of components represents one of a color value or a transparency value (Surti [0012], [0031], [0136]-[0137], [0142]-[0148], figs 8).
Regarding claim 16:
Surti in view of Harris teaches A method performed by a processing system of a computing device for
image decompression, comprising:
decoding a metadata with a location identifier configured to describe
locations of image color data of a portion of an image within a portion of a
memory in an interleaved format; and
identifying the locations of the image color data of the portion of the
image within the portion of the memory in the interleaved format from the
location identifier. (The subject-matter of independent claim 16 corresponds in, terms of an image decompression method, to that of claim 1. The above objections raised in respect of this latter claim therefore also apply, mutatis mutandis, to independent claim 16, see also Surti [0052], [0124]-[0126], fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17-25:
The subject-matter of dependent claim 17 corresponds in, terms of an image
decompression method, to that of claim 2. The subject-matter of dependent claims 18-20 corresponds in, terms of an image decompression method, to that of claim 3, wherein the aspect of multiple components of image color data is disclosed in the cited passages of each of documents D1-D3 (references to red, green and blue components). The subject-matter of dependent claims 21-25 corresponds in, terms of an image decompression method, to that of claims 4-8, respectively. The above objections raised in respect of claims 2-8 therefore also apply, mutatis mutandis, to dependent claims 17-25
Regarding claim 26:
The subject-matter of independent claim 26 corresponds in, terms of a computing device, to that of claim 16. The above objections raised in respect of this latter claim therefore also apply, mutatis mutandis, to independent claim 26. Therefore claim 26 is rejected on the same ground as claim 16
Regarding claims 27-30:
The subject-matter of dependent claim 27, 28, 29 and 30 respectively corresponds in, terms of an image decompression method, to that of claim 18, 19, 20 and 25. The above objections raised in respect of this latter claim Therefore, also apply, mutatis mutandis, to dependent claims 27-30
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEDNEL CADEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7843. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/WEDNEL CADEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 February 18, 2026