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 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 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), 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):
(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 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 13: “tiling logic arranged to…;” and
“rendering logic arranged to…”
In claim 19: “tiling logic arranged to…;” and
“rendering logic arranged to…”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the structure corresponding to the claimed “logic” is any circuitry arranged to perform the functions (see, for example, paragraph 78 of the specification, and components of figure 4, such as the processor 41). For the purposes of examination, the tiling logic and rendering logic will be interpretated accordingly.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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, 4, 6, 7, 10-13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0051342), referred herein as Bates, in view of Van der Auwera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,699,389), referred herein as Van der Auwera, and further in view of Dimitrov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,503,457), referred herein as Dimitrov.
Regarding claim 1, Bates teaches a method of rendering geometry of a 3D scene, the method comprising: projecting geometry of the 3D scene into a 2D projection plane (figs 5 and 8; paragraph 20, lines 18-22; paragraphs 63-64);
defining a first set of transformations, and adjusting the first set of transformations to produce a set of adjusted transformations (paragraph 42, lines 1-8; paragraph 46, the last 8 lines; paragraph 54, lines 1-9 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 57, lines 1-8 and the last 6 lines; transformations are determined for each vertex, then the transformations are adjusted when motion, viewpoint, etc. changes, and this is continually iterated);
mapping the geometry from the projection plane into an image space using the set of adjusted transformations (paragraph 20, the last 4 lines; paragraph 42, the last 7 lines; paragraph 57, lines 9-13 and the last 6 lines; paragraphs 65-66; the adjusted transformations are used to map the geometry into an image space),
wherein the first set of transformations are configured for mapping the geometry into the image space so as to counteract warping (paragraph 20, lines 18-22; paragraph 42, lines 1-8; paragraph 46, the last 8 lines; paragraph 54, lines 1-9 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 57, lines 1-8 and the last 6 lines); and
rendering the geometry in the image space to determine image values of an image (paragraph 20, the last 4 lines; paragraph 42, the last 7 lines; paragraph 57, lines 9-13 and the last 6 lines; paragraphs 65-66; the geometry is rendered in image space to determine image values of an image).
It is noted that the term “distortion” has a number of broad reasonable interpretations (some of which may be contemplated in Bates, such as image warping), and Bates discusses concerns surrounding correcting images from an HMD camera (paragraph 31). But Bates does not explicitly disclose correcting distortion, wherein the distortion is introduced by an optical arrangement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Van der Auwera teaches a method for mapping geometry from a projection plane to an image space using transformations (column 7, lines 46-51; column 8, lines 56-61; column 9, lines 40-53), wherein transformations are used to counteract distortion (column 8, lines 61-63; column 9, lines 4-13; column 11, lines 5-30), wherein the distortion is introduced by an optical arrangement (Van der Auwera, fig 4, lens 420; column 8, lines 61-63).
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 optical arrangement distortion correction of Van der Auwera with the image warping correction of Bates because as taught by Van der Auwera, this helps produce higher quality output image data by correcting errors that can be induced by the image capture device (see, for example, Van der Auwera, column 1, lines 39-50; column 26, lines 10-20).
Bates in view of Van der Auwera does not explicitly teach performing the projecting, transforming, and mapping prior to rasterization of the geometry.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Dimitrov teaches a method of rendering geometry of a 3D scene comprising projecting the geometry of the 3D scene into a 2D projection plane, defining transformations, and adjusting the transformations to map geometry into an image space so as to counteract distortion (column 5, lines 48-59; column 7, lines 51-62; column 8, line 60 through column 9, line 13), wherein the projecting, transforming, and mapping are performed prior to rasterization of the geometry (figs 9 and 10; rasterizing step 906, rasterizer 1004, after all of the projection, transform, and mapping processing; column 7, lines 46-55; column 8, lines 15-26).
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 pre-rasterization processing of Dimitrov with the processing of Bates in view of Van der Auwera because this helps ensure that the scenes are generated more accurately and consistently regardless of any potential optical distortion, thereby improving overall image quality (see, for example, Dimitrov, column 6, lines 51-56; column 7, lines 16-21 and 51-65).
Regarding claim 4, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting provides motion compensation (Bates, paragraph 20, lines 1-4; Van der Auwera, column 21, lines 24-26; column 22, lines 61-67; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 1, wherein image regions are defined in the projection plane as tiles (Bates, paragraph 26, lines 1-7; paragraph 46, lines 1-8; paragraph 47, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the image regions in the projection plane are distorted tiles, and wherein a respective transformation is defined for each image region, and further wherein the respective transformation for each of the image regions maps the image region to an undistorted tile in the image space (Bates, paragraph 46; paragraph 54, lines 1-9 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 57, lines 1-8 and the last 6 lines; see also paragraph 20, lines 1-4 and paragraph 31 for correcting image data from a camera; using transformations to correct distortion of distorted tiles: Van der Auwera, column 8, lines 61-63; column 9, lines 4-13; column 10, lines 30-66; column 21, lines 24-26 and 62-67; column 22, lines 61-67; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 1, wherein projecting geometry of the 3D scene into said 2D projection plane comprises: sub-dividing pixels in said image space into a plurality of image regions, each image region of said image space comprising a group of pixels (Bates, paragraph 26, lines 1-7; paragraph 46, lines 1-8; paragraph 47, lines 1-3; paragraph 53, lines 1-9; paragraph 58, the last 9 lines).
Regarding claim 11, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 1, wherein mapping the geometry from the projection plane into an image space using transformations comprises: applying, for each vertex in an image region, a linear transformation to map the vertex position from the image space to said projection plane (Bates, paragraph 50; paragraph 53, lines 1-9; paragraph 54, lines 1-9 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 57, lines 1-8 and the last 6 lines; translation, rotation, etc., are linear transformations).
Regarding claim 12, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 11, wherein applying, for each vertex in an image region, a linear transformation to map the vertex position from the image space to said projection plane comprises: applying the linear transformation, for each vertex in an image region, to X and Y coordinates in the projection plane and leaving other vertex attributes unmodified (Bates, paragraph 50; paragraph 53, lines 1-9; paragraph 54, lines 1-9 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 57, lines 1-8 and the last 6 lines; only the x, y coordinates are transformed).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1, thus they are rejected on similar grounds (except for the graphics processing system and logic, which are disclosed by Bates, fig 3; please note the 112(f) interpretation of the “logic” discussed above).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 7; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 11 and 12, thus they are rejected on similar grounds (except for the memory arranged to store a plurality of transformation parameters defining the transformations, which is disclosed in Bates, paragraphs 83 and 89).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 13; thus they are rejected on similar grounds (except for the medium and integrated circuit, which are disclosed by Bates, paragraphs 83, 89, and 98; please note that the “manufacturing” features recite an intended use that is in the preamble, and is not incorporated in, or relevant to, the steps recited in the body of the claim; thus these features are not given patentable weight).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates, in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov, and further in view of Shpunt et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,786,682), referred herein as Shpunt.
Regarding claim 5, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transformations are adjusted by applying each transformation in the first set of transformations (Bates, paragraph 42, lines 1-8; paragraph 46, the last 8 lines; paragraph 54, lines 1-9 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 57, lines 1-8 and the last 6 lines).
Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov does not explicitly teach combining the transformations with a global transformation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shpunt teaches a method for mapping geometry from a projection plane to an image plane using local transformations (column 10, lines 37-45 and 49-58), wherein the transformations are combined with a global transformation (column 10, line 59 through column 11, line 3).
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 global transformations of Shpunt with the transformations of Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov because as taught by Shpunt, this improves the broader viewpoint of objects within a scene while maintaining the finer resolution of local transformations, thereby producing a higher quality image (see, for example, Shpunt, column 10, lines 62-65; column 11, lines 3-12).
Claims 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates, in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov, and further in view of Adams et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0148901), referred herein as Adams.
Regarding claim 8, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teach the method of claim 1, wherein image regions are defined in the projection plane as tiles (Bates, paragraph 26, lines 1-7; paragraph 46, lines 1-8; paragraph 47, lines 1-3), but does not explicitly teach that the image regions are half-tiles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adams teaches a method for projecting geometry of 3D image regions using transformations (column 80, lines 1-8), wherein the image regions may be defined as half-tiles (paragraph 74, lines 1-8; a 64 x 64 tile may instead be defined as a 32 x 32, or 64 x 32 tile, both of which are considered half-tiles).
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 tiling of Adams with the image processing of Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov because as taught by Adams, this can retain the quality of the image processing while reducing the data needed to perform the processing (see, for example, Adams, paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 9, Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the determined image values of the image (Bates, paragraph 20, the last 4 lines; paragraph 42, the last 7 lines; paragraph 57, lines 9-13 and the last 6 lines; paragraphs 65-66), but does not explicitly teach outputting to a frame buffer.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adams teaches a method for projecting geometry of 3D image regions using transformations (column 80, lines 1-8), wherein the resulting image values are output to a frame buffer (paragraph 74, lines 1-2 and 8-12).
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 buffer of Adams with the image projection of Bates in view of Van der Auwera, further in view of Dimitrov because as known in the art and taught by Adams, frame buffers enable efficient and high-speed access to the processed data, which is critical for such graphics processing systems (see, for example, Adams, paragraph 58; paragraph 62, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 9; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant repeats the same arguments as previous responses, yet still does not provide substantive arguments rebutting the 112(f) interpretation. Thus, this Office Action incorporates the responses discussed in previous Office Actions, and these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that the time warping is not taught by the prior art, as set forth in the prior response. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument, for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Actions.
On page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Bates discloses processing performed on rendered pixels / post-rasterization points, and thus does not teach performing the transformations prior to rasterizing the geometry, as set forth in the amended limitation.
It is first noted that Bates is not limited to processing rendered pixels or post-rasterization points; indeed, the only mention of rasterizing is in paragraph 61, which generally describes that quads or rectangles may be rasterized as triangles. This paragraph does not support the broad assertion made in the Remarks. Nevertheless, this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
On page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Bates and Van der Auwera would not be combined, because the distortion correction of Van der Auwera would not be used to correct images in Bates, which would not have fisheye lens distortion. This argument is not persuasive.
As has been previously discussed, distortion correction is very well-known in the art, and Bates contemplates that warping may be introduced by movement of a camera of an HMD. Such warping would very clearly and obviously be improved by correcting distortion, as disclosed in Van der Auwera. Further details in this regard have been discussed in previous Office Actions and are incorporated herein.
On page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that the combination of Bates and Van der Auwera is improper because 1) it is not based solely on the disclosures on the prior art, but instead relies on an attempt to recreate the invention using the claimed invention itself as a starting point, 2) this assertion is supported by “the Examiner’s acknowledgement that the full teachings of the prior art were not considered in making the proposed combination” as evidenced by various responses to arguments in the previous Office Acton, and 3) the skilled person would have considered the entirety of Bate’s disclosure when considering whether to modify the prior art, and would not have first considered the claimed invention and then turned to the prior art. These arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the first argument, any judgment on obviousness is, in a sense, necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, not least because the claim would not be under evaluation without first being presented for examination. But so long as a rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Office Action provides clear and concise citations to the prior art teachings, and to the locations of where the articulated motivations were derived. Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, impermissible hindsight reasoning was not employed, and the 103 rejections are proper.
Regarding the second argument, there is nothing in any previous Office Action indicating that the full teachings of the prior art were not considered, and the small, out-of-context excerpts in the Remarks do nothing to support such an assertion. These excerpts were parts of responses addressing piecemeal analysis arguments in Applicant’s previous remarks, and have no bearing on the issue at hand. But in any event, such an assertion is not relevant to an evaluation of a 103 rejection, not least because it does not point out any lack of teaching in the prior art, and does not point out any deficiency in the combination of references.
Regarding the third argument, the Remarks state that a skilled person “would not have first considered the claimed invention and then turned to the prior art.” Yet, contrary to this statement, a skilled person would understand that this is precisely what patent examination comprises. As discussed above, the claim would not be under evaluation without first being presented for examination. But as also discussed above, so long as a rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure (as is the case in the instant and previous Office Actions), such a reconstruction is proper. Nonetheless, like the previous argument in the Remarks, this spurious assertion is not relevant to an evaluation of a 103 rejection, not least because it does not point out any lack of teaching in the prior art, and does not point out any deficiency in the combination of references.
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