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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, and 17 are objected to because of a minor informality. Each of these claims recites “the shade space shading operation” (claims 1, 9, and 17, the final limitation; claims 7 and 15, the final line) which no longer has antecedent basis, although the Examiner can understand what was meant. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0095266), referred herein as Garvey, in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0166441), referred herein as Yang, and further in view of Ha et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0148420), referred herein as Ha.
Regarding claim 1, Garvey teaches a method for rendering, the method comprising: generating tiles that cover shade space textures visible in a scene (paragraph 64, the last 6 lines; paragraph 81, lines 1-7 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 88, lines 1-11; paragraph 92, lines 1-5; paragraph 96, lines 1-4 and the last 4 lines);
selecting a variable shading rate for the tiles, and shading the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene based on the variable shading rate, wherein samples in the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene are shaded in the shading (paragraph 82; paragraph 92, lines 1-5; paragraph 120, lines 1-19); and
performing a reconstruction operation using output from the shade space shading operation to produce a final scene (paragraph 74; paragraph 87, lines 1-13).
Garvey teaches a variable shading rate, but does not explicitly teach selecting a temporal shading rate for the tiles, wherein the temporal shading rate is based on degree of movement of visual elements of the tiles, and the shading is based on the temporal shading rate.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a method for rendering comprising performing shading on tiles covering shade space textures (figs 1A and 2; paragraph 28 and 32; paragraph 133, lines 1-17), and further comprising selecting a temporal shading rate for the tiles, wherein the temporal shading rate is based on degree of movement of visual elements of the tiles (paragraphs 24 and 25; paragraph 56, lines 1-15; paragraphs 67 and 74), and the shading is based on the temporal shading rate (paragraphs 31 and 32; paragraph 56, lines 1-15; paragraph 57, the last 14 lines; paragraph 70, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temporal shading rate of Yang with the variable shading rate of Garvey because this allows for smoother, clearer, higher quality image output at higher resulting frame rates (see, for example Yang, paragraph 47; paragraph 55, the last 6 lines).
Garvey in view of Yang does not explicitly teach that the shading rate indicates how many frames in a sequence of frames to skip shading for the tiles, and that only a subset of samples in the tiles are shaded in the shading.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ha teaches a method for rendering comprising generating tiles that cover visible shade space textures in a scene, selecting a temporal shading rate for the tiles, and reconstructing a final scene based on the shading (paragraph 7; paragraph 60, lines 1-6 and 10-15; paragraph 73, lines 6-14; paragraph 78), wherein the shading rate indicates how many frames in a sequence of frames to skip shading for the tiles, and only a subset of samples in the tiles are shaded in the shading (paragraph 60, lines 1-10; paragraph 63, lines 1-11; paragraph 73, lines 1-10 and 14-23; paragraph 74, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the frame skipping and subset shading of Ha with the shading of Garvey in view of Yang, because this utilizes computing resources more efficiently by maximization shading only when needed and minimizing shading the rest of the time, thus reducing processing and storage requirements while maintaining high image quality (see, for example, Ha, paragraph 58, the last 8 lines; paragraph 60, the last 5 lines; paragraph 73, the last 6 lines).
Regarding claim 2, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting and the shading are iteratively performed, and output of the selecting is based on feedback from the shading (Garvey, paragraph 99, lines 10-22; paragraph 118, lines 1-12; paragraph 123, lines 1-13; Yang, paragraph 69; paragraph 70, lines 1-16; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the selecting further comprises: (i) comparing values of spatially-corresponding samples output during first and second iterations of the shading; and (ii) adjusting or maintaining the temporal shading rate based on a result of the comparing (Yang, paragraph 29, lines 1-13; paragraphs 31 and 32; paragraph 68, lines 1-5; paragraph 69; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the temporal shading rate is increased if one or more differences between the spatially-corresponding samples output during the first and second iterations of the shading exceed a threshold (Yang, paragraphs 32 and 33; paragraph 70; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 2, wherein shaded samples are cached for reuse over a plurality of iterations of the shading (Yang, paragraph 100; paragraph 133, lines 9-29; paragraph 140, lines 1-13; see also Garvey, paragraph 71; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the temporal shading rate output by the selecting is implemented in accordance with a predetermined budget of samples to be shaded in the shading (Garvey, paragraph 102; Ha, paragraph 60, lines 1-15; paragraph 63; paragraph 83; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 6, wherein an optimum temporal shading rate is selected for the shading in order to minimize visual and perceptible impact of applying only a subset of samples to the shade space shading operation (Yang, paragraph 52, lines 1-16; paragraph 57, the last 14; paragraph 70; Ha, paragraphs 60 and 63; paragraph 73; see also Garvey, paragraphs 78 and 120; the motivations to combine are similar to those discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Ha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the reconstruction operation is part of a sequence of reconstruction intervals (Garvey, paragraph 82; paragraph 92, lines 1-5; paragraph 120, lines 1-19; Yang, paragraph 66; Ha, paragraphs 67 and 70; the motivations to combine are similar to those discussed above in the rejection of claim 1); the shading is part of a sequence of shade space shading frames (Garvey, paragraph 74; paragraph 87, lines 1-13; Yang, paragraph 43; Ha, paragraph 73; the motivations to combine are similar to those discussed above in the rejection of claim 1); and the sequence of reconstruction intervals is processed at a higher frequency than the sequence of shade space shading frames (Yang, paragraphs 44 and 47; paragraph 52, lines 1-16; paragraph 66, lines 1-8; paragraph 70; Ha, paragraphs 60 and 63; paragraph 73; the motivations to combine are similar to those discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions, which is disclosed by Garvey, fig 1, processor 120, memory 124, and paragraph 49, the last 10 lines); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 10-16, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2-8, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the medium storing instructions executed by a processor, which is disclosed by Garvey, fig 1, processor 120, memory 124, and paragraph 49, the last 10 lines); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 20, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2, 5, and 6, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims have resolved the previous issues; thus these claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. The Examiner agrees that the previously applied art does not teach the newly amended limitations regarding frame skipping, but respectfully submits that the Ha reference teaches these limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights