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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of "A computer readable medium" encompasses a signal and signals are non-statutory. See MPEP 2106.03.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZGUNER et al. (US20190051229) hereafter OZGUNER in view of KEMISETTI et al. (US20230368325) hereafter KEMISETTI.
1. Regarding claim 1, OZGUNER discloses an apparatus (fig 1,6, 9 - 11 shows and paras 0021-0023, 0061-0063 discloses an apparatus) for graphics processing, comprising:
a memory (fig 6 shows system memory 692); and a processor (fig 6 shows processor 660) coupled to the memory and, based on information stored in the memory, the processor is configured to:
configure a set of graphics processor timeout values for a set of color fields for a first frame, wherein a sum of the set of graphics processor timeout values or equal to a threshold graphics processor timeout value (figs 9,10, paras 0022, 0072-0079 shows and discloses a set of graphics processor time out (i.e end time) values (field time 1015r, field time 1015g and field time 1015) for a first frame image 1020 as seen in fig 10 and the sum (total) time of all the three field times (1015r+1015g+1015b) is equal to the frame time 1014 (i.e a threshold graphics processor time out (end time)), examiner notes that due to the recital of or only one is required to be met and the specifics of a threshold graphics timeout value is not required by the current claim);
detect, based on the set of graphics processor timeout values, that a graphics processor timeout has occurred with respect to at least one color field in the set of color fields (fig 10 and para 0075 shows and discloses detecting end of filed time 1015r (i.e graphics processor time out (end time) value with respect to Red color field in the set of the graphics processor time out values (1015r, 1015g and 1015b, i.e set of color fields) meeting the above claim limitations). As seen from the disclosure and in paras 0070-0079 detection of a pose and fig 11 show the goggles (i.e head mounted display worn by the user). OZGUNER is silent and however fails to disclose perform, based on the detection and a head pose of a user, (1) an adjustment to at least one timeout value in the set of graphics processor timeout values such that the sum of the set of graphics processor timeout values remains less than or equal to the threshold graphics processor timeout value or (2) a retrieval of a set of motion vectors for a second frame, wherein the second frame is prior to the first frame; and output an indication of the adjustment to the at least one timeout value or the retrieval of the set of motion vectors.
KEMISETTI discloses perform, based on the detection and a head pose of a user, or (2) a retrieval of a set of motion vectors for a second frame, wherein the second frame is prior to the first frame (0037-0038 and 0041 discloses perform based on detecting and a head pose of the user (i.e user’s latest head pose) by generating motion vector grid (i.e the set of motion vectors) for a previously rendered frame by reprojecting the previously rendered frame into a normally rendered frame (i.e the first frame) meeting the limitations of wherein the second frame is prior to the first frame, examiner notes that due to the recital of or only one is required to be met); and output or the retrieval of the set of motion vectors (paras 0037-0038, 0041 discloses rendering (output) the latest head pose details based on the MV grid (i.e output the retrieval of the set of the motion vectors) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that due to the recital of or only one is required to be met and the strike through limitations are not required to be met). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved system (i.e bring about performance benefits) in paras 0021-0022. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of KEMISETTI in the apparatus of OZGUNER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 2, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations in claim 2 are not required to be met.
3. Regarding claim 3, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. KEMISETTI discloses further wherein or the retrieval of the set of motion vectors (para 0059 discloses the retrieval of the motion vectors (i.e the MV grid workloads) and the MV grid (motion vectors) submitted (transmitted) to the GPU meeting the above claim limitations. Examiner notes that due to the recital of or’s in the claim only one is required to be met and the strike through limitations are not required to be met); or
4. Regarding claim 4, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. KEMISETTI disclose further wherein the processor is further configured to: compute the head pose of the user based on data generated by a wearable display device worn by the user, wherein to perform (0037-0038 and 0041 discloses computing the head pose of the user (i.e user’s head pose) and retrieve the motion vectors (MV grid) based on the computed head pose based on data generated by the wearable device (i.e HMD) meeting the above claim limitations, Examiner notes that due to the recital of or’s in the claim only one is required to be met and the strike through limitations are not required to be met).
5. Regarding claim 5, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 4. KEMISETTI discloses further wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the computed head pose of the user to a prior head pose of the user, wherein to perform motion vectors, the processor is configured to perform, based on the comparison(para 0037-0038 and 0041 discloses a final display based on the latest head pose and the latest head pose details would mean the change or comparing the computed head pose to the prior in-order to get the latest head pose and retrieving the MV grid (motion vectors) based on the latest head pose details meeting the above claim limitations, Examiner notes that due to the recital of or’s in the claim only one is required to be met and the strike through limitations are not required to be met).
6. Regarding claim 6, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Examiner notes that due to the recital of or in claims 5,4 and 1, the limitations of claim 6 are not required to be met.
7. Regarding claim 8, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations in claim 8 are not required to be met.
8. Regarding claim 9, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. KEMISETTI discloses further wherein to perform (paras 0037-0038 and 0041 discloses perform a reprojection on the first frame based on the set of motion vectors and the head pose of the user) and OZGUNER discloses the reprojection using the set of color fields (figs 6, 10 and paras 0016, 0056-0057 and 0073). OZGUNER and KEMISETTI together would therefore meet the limitations of claim 9.
9. Regarding claim 10, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. OZGUNER disclose wherein the set of color fields comprises a red color field, a green color field, and a blue color field (fig 10 and para 0075 shows and discloses detecting end of filed time 1015r (i.e graphics processor time out (end time) value with respect to Red color field in the set of the graphics processor time out values (1015red, 1015green and 1015blue, i.e set of color fields) meeting the above claim limitations).
10. Regarding claim 11, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations in claim 11 are not required to be met.
11. Regarding claim 13, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations in claim 13 are not required to be met.
12. Regarding claim 14, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations in claim 14 are not required to be met.
13. Regarding claim 15, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. OZGUNER discloses further wherein the first frame corresponds to at least one of (figs 6, 10 and para 0057 discloses wherein the first frame corresponds to at least one of augmented reality (AR) content, mixed reality (MR) content, or virtual reality (VR) content meeting the above claim limitations).
14. Regarding claim 16, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 1. OZGUNER discloses further wherein the apparatus is a wireless communication device (HMD device 600 is a wireless communication device) comprising at least one of a transceiver or (fig 6, 11 paras 0007, 0057-0060 and 0086 discloses the interconnect 610 to communicate with the processor 660 and the sensor devices 620 for receiving the first frame, processing the frame data and outputting the processed (transformed) image to the display using the processor, i.e the transmitting and receiving the instructions to and from the processor is implied/obvious meeting the claim limitations of transceiver (or transmitting and receiving)).
15. Claim 17 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1.
16. Claim 18 is a corresponding method claim of claim 11. See the explanation of claim 11.
17. Claim 19 is s corresponding method claim of claim 3. See the explanation of claim 3.
18. Claim 20 is a corresponding computer-readable medium claim of claim 1. OZGUNER discloses in paras 0062-0063 a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform the steps of claim 20.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZGUNER in view of KEMISETTI and in further view of Zhang (US20170295373) hereafter Zhang.
19. Regarding claim 7, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein to perform
Zhang discloses the processor is configured to perform the retrieval of the set of motion vectors based on the comparison indicating that a difference between the computed head pose and the prior head pose is less than a threshold difference (figs 1, 4 and paras 0024-0025 the processor is configured to perform the retrieval of the set of motion vectors based on the comparison indicating that a difference between the computed head pose and the prior head pose is less than a threshold difference meeting the claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Zhang, OZGUNER and KEMISETTI are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved device/apparatus at para 0024. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Zhang in the apparatus of OZGUNER and KEMISETTI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677