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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/24/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US20080240583, hereinafter “Jones”)
Claim 1. Jones teaches A computing system comprising:
a logic subsystem; ([0104] “computer readable storage medium that is connected to the image processor” Is understood to be the same as the claimed logic subsystem in light of instant specifications [0059]) and
a storage subsystem holding instruction executable by the logic subsystem to:
receive, from a remote computing system, ([0104] “The computer program for performing the method of the present invention may also be stored on computer readable storage medium that is connected to the image processor by way of the Internet or other communication medium.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed storage subsystem in light of instant specifications [0059]) an individual contrast sensitivity function (CSF) ([0060] “CSF” and [0059] “contrast sensitivity function (CSF)”) of a user ([0060] “observer”) and a distance measurement indicating a distance ([0060] “viewing distance ”) between the user and a display of the remote computing system; ([0055] “viewing distance (i.e., the distance from the observer to the display)”)
generate an image frame; ([0082] “single frame…image frames”)
modify one or more parameters of a compression algorithm ([0068] “quantizer step size generator 30 in addition to the JPEG2000 encoder elements” is understood to be the same as the claimed modify one or more parameters of a compression algorithm in light of instant specifications [0041]) based at least on the individual CSF ([0069] “quantizer step size generator 30 shown in FIG. 9 includes: a CSF calculator 30a that takes the viewing condition parameters as input;”) of the user and the distance measurement; ([0068] “viewing condition parameters (which includes the viewing distance”) and
generate a compressed image frame from the image frame using the compression algorithm based at least on the one or more modified parameters. ([0025] “compressing remaining images from the set of images that are not in the subset of images, using the compression parameters that were used for the subset of images;”)
Claim 2. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters of the compression algorithm ([0084] “compression parameters”) include one or more quantized coefficients of a quantization table ([0084] “quantizer step sizes” is understood to be the same as the claimed quantized coefficients of a quantization table in light of instant specifications [0041] ) used by the compression algorithm to generate the compressed image. ([0057] “Original image data is compressed using a JPEG2000 encoder 20 with quantizer step sizes”)
Claim 3. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 2, wherein the individual CSF of the user indicates different contrast sensitivities of the user at different spatial frequencies, and wherein quantized coefficients corresponding to spatial frequencies ([0064] “[0064] Once the CSF values that correspond to the wavelet subbands are known, it is then possible to compute the corresponding set of quantizer step sizes that will produce visually lossless quality for the specified viewing conditions.”) where the user has lower contrast sensitivities as specified by the individual CSF of the user are modified to a greater degree than quantized coefficients corresponding to spatial frequencies where the user has higher contrast sensitivities as specified by the individual CSF of the user. ([0061] “The mapping of the CSF to cycles/picture height and the resulting effect of the viewing distance in picture heights is illustrated in FIG. 5 for viewing distances of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 picture heights (PH). As an observer moves further from the display, the CSF is mapped to lower spatial frequencies and there is less sensitivity to the higher spatial frequencies.”)
Claim 4. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the remote computing system is configured to perform a user calibration process to calculate the individual CSF ([0060] “Once the intended viewing distance and the display characteristics are specified, it is possible to map the units of cycles/degree for the CSF to physical units on the display, such as cycles/mm”)of the user. ([0060] “specify the viewing distance in terms of the number of picture heights from the display to the observer to establish the proper scaling of the CSF spatial frequency axis.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed user calibration process in light of instant specifications [0068])
Claim 5. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the distance between the user and the display of the remote computing system is a fixed distance, (fig.4 shows the distance between the user and the display is a fixed distance 2 times the height of the display) wherein the computing system is configured to perform a user calibration process to calculate the distance measurement, ([0062] “viewing distance of 2.0 screen heights.” Is understood by the examiner to be a calculation of the distance based on 2x the screen height) and wherein the computing system receives the distance measurement from the remote computing system based at least on the remote computing system performing the user calibration process. ([0068] “The inputs to the quantizer step size generator are the viewing condition parameters (which includes the viewing distance in picture heights”)
Claim 6. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the storage subsystem holds instruction executable by the logic subsystem to:
receive an updated distance measurement indicating an updated distance between the user and the display of the remote computing system, (abstract “threshold viewing distance is modified to a larger distance”)
generate an updated image frame; (abstract “and the compression process is repeated.”)
modify the one or more parameters of the compression algorithm based at least on the individual CSF of the user and the updated distance measurement; and
generate an updated compressed image frame from the updated image frame using the compression algorithm based at least on the one or more modified parameters. (abstract “and the compression process is repeated.” Cited portions of the identical process which is repeated are cited in claims 1-5)
Claim 7. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the storage subsystem holds instruction executable by the logic subsystem to:
generate a plurality of image frames; ([0094] “image frames”)
receive a plurality of updated distance measurements corresponding to the plurality of image frames from the remote computing system; ([0094] “viewing distance can be modified”)
for each of the plurality of image frames,
modify the one or more parameters of the compression algorithm ([0094] “corresponding quantizer step sizes are then computed for the second compression pass”) based at least on the individual CSF ([0069] “quantizer step size generator 30 shown in FIG. 9 includes: a CSF calculator 30a that takes the viewing condition parameters as input;”) of the user and the updated distance measurement received for the corresponding image frame; ([0068] “viewing condition parameters (which includes the viewing distance”) and
generate a compressed image frame from the image frame using the compression algorithm based at least on the one or more modified parameters. ([0025] “compressing remaining images from the set of images that are not in the subset of images, using the compression parameters that were used for the subset of images;”)
Claim 11. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 12. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 2 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 13. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 3 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 14. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 4 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 15. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 5 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 16. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 6 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 17. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 7 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 18. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 20. The system herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
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.
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 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US20080240583, hereinafter “Jones”) and in view of Pohl et al (US20200241823, hereinafter “Pohl”)
Claim 10. Jones teaches The computing system of claim 1,
Jones does not explicitly teach wherein the remote computing system is an augmented-reality computing system, wherein the display is a near-eye display of the augmented-reality computing system, and wherein the compressed image frame is a compressed augmented-reality image frame.
Pohl teaches wherein the remote computing system is an augmented-reality computing system, ([0024] “renders visual content 22 (e.g., left and right stereoscopic VR, AR and/or mixed reality images/frames)”) wherein the display is a near-eye display of the augmented-reality computing system, ([0024] “sends the compressed visual content 22 to a head mounted display (HMD) 24 (e.g., remote display) that is worn by a user 26.”) and wherein the compressed image frame is a compressed augmented-reality image frame. ([0024] “…images/frames), compresses the visual content 22, and sends the compressed visual content 22…”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones to have the display be an AR display and the compressed image frame be an AR image frames taught by Pohl to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because (Pohl [0026] “the compression of the peripheral region(s) 34 significantly reduces the amount of data to be transmitted to the HMD 24.”)
Claim 19. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 10 and is likewise rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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:
Honsinger et al US6212302 teaches compressing images based on CSF
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS IQBAL MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698