DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment of 11/30/2023 where claims 1-30 have been cancelled and new claims 31-52 have been added is noted.
Priority
This application is a continuation of 18/525,178 filed 11/30/2023 which further claims the benefit of 63/465,672 filed 05/11/2023.
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 31-52 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.
In reference to claims 31, 40 and 45, these claims comprise the limitation, “…wherein at least some potential match chains are determined to be…” (see for example, 4th-to-last line of claim 31) of which is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, the term “at least some” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least some” in the context of a number of “potential match chains” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be inclined to put any sort of value, range of values, amount, etc. in the context of the invention in order to equate an amount of “potential match chains” to satisfy the “at least some” language. In other words, would “1” match chain be considered “at least some” or maybe “half the total” of match chains be considered “at least some?” Such an answer cannot be derived from the claim language thus, the Examiner deems the claims suffer from indefiniteness and warrant such a rejection. Note, claims 32-39, 52, 41-44 and 46-51, these claims depend upon claims 31, 40 and 45 respectively and are therefore also at least inherently included in this rejection. Lastly, as per prior art rejection purposes, the Examiner will do his best to apply a broadest yet still fair interpretation of the term as per the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of such indefiniteness issues.
In reference to claims 34, 43 and 48, these claims comprise the limitation, “…wherein the iterative selection selects the best match chains, “ (see lines 1-2 of each claim) of which is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, the term “the best” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the best” in the context of a number of “selected match chains” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be inclined to put any sort of value, range of values, amount, etc. in the context of the invention in order to equate any sort of measure to “a best selected match chain,” thus, the Examiner deems the claims suffer from indefiniteness and warrant such a rejection. Lastly, as per prior art rejection purposes, the Examiner will do his best to apply a broadest yet still fair interpretation of the term as per the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of such indefiniteness issues.
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.
Claim(s) 31-35, 37-49 and 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothandaraman et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0057492) and Markus et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0107012).
In reference to claim 31, Kothandaraman et al. discloses a method of encoding a texture, the method comprising (see paragraphs 35-37 wherein Kothandaraman et al. discloses an apparatus, system or process for interleaving variable bitrate data streams for GPU implementations, the data streams disclosed as comprising large amounts of texture data which are supercompressed utilizing specific encoding techniques.):
encoding each of a plurality of blocks into which the texture has been divided into a plurality of block bitstreams (see paragraphs 238, 244, 301-302, 308, 312 and Figures 15B,16A, 18-19 wherein Kothandaraman et al. discloses utilizing texture data for game assets which has already been block-compressed in well documented block-compression schemes or in other words, has been “divided into a plurality of blocks.” Kothandaraman et al. discloses receiving multiple bitstreams for encoding using 64 kb divided chunk sizes for encoding the bitstreams.);
for each block, selecting up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams; for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained (see paragraphs 301-302, 308, 312 and Figures 16A, 18-19 wherein Kothandaraman et al. discloses receiving multiple bitstreams for encoding using 64 kb divided chunk sizes for encoding the bitstreams Note, it can be seen from at least Figure 16A with reference to the “fill patterns” representing the different bitstreams that the bitstreams are “contiguous” or adjacent one another. Lastly, Kothandaraman et al. discloses that the number of chunks is not limited however, that the chunk size will cover the entire MiP resolution of texture data or in other words, a “predetermined number” of chunks and inherently bitstreams, will be processed to cover the entirety of the selected MiP resolution level.);
detecting collisions among the obtained data chunks;
based on the detected collisions, forming match chains with redundant data chunks such that, for each match chain, the redundant data chunks therein represent a common value of an associated block bitstream;
iteratively selecting a set of match chains from among the formed match chains based on a hyperparameter, wherein at least some potential match chains are determined to be not selectable in the iterative selection and are not considered during the formation of the match chains; and
obtaining a lossy encoding of the texture from the selected set of match chains (see paragraphs 301, 309 wherein Kothandaraman et al. discloses utilizing the BC1-BC7 block encoding techniques of which the Examiner at least interprets as functionally equivalent to a “lossy encoding of the texture.”);.
Although Kothandaraman et al. does disclose performing encoding of texture data obtaining lossy encoded outputs, Kothandaraman et al. does not disclose detecting collisions among data chunks and forming match chains with redundant data chunks. Markus et al. discloses a system and method for video encoding that utilizing video encoding parameters including a measure of block matching (see paragraphs 1, 7 and 8). Markus et al. discloses a hardware accelerator scanning video frames in a scan pattern to provide cost scores of encoding a given block of data (see paragraphs 58-60). Markus et al. discloses a measure of block matching provides a measure of how well the candidate block matches a reference image or reference block (see paragraph 60). Markus et al. then discloses computing a cost score based upon the block matching processing (see paragraph 60). Note, the Examiner interprets the block matching and scoring of Markus et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “detecting collisions…” and “forming match chains…” Markus et al. further discloses utilizing a rate distortion optimization score for the block being evaluated when performing an encoded assisted data video encoding (see paragraphs 51-52, 60-61 and Figures 1 & 12). Note, the Examiner interprets such a rate distortion optimization (RDO) score of Markus et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “hyperparameter” as the techniques of video encoding using the encoding assisted data in Markus et al. at least inherently perform the “iterative” processing since they estimate the rate distortion for candidate blocks (see at least paragraphs 62-67) again, using the block matching techniques discussed above, with the usage of the rate distortion score at least inherently selecting appropriate blocks of data in order to keep within the optimization, as indicated by the RDO. Lastly, Markus et al. explicitly discloses the techniques applied to known video standards such as HEVC and AVC (see at least paragraphs 6 and 95) of which the Examiner interprets both as producing “lossy” type outputs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the video encoding using block matching and rate optimization score parameter techniques of Markus et al. with the texture game asset compression techniques of Kothandaraman et al. in order to reduce memory and bandwidth on graphics hardware by encoding many blocks with the same bitstream using techniques which exploit redundancy within frame/data content (see at least paragraph 4 of Markus et al.).
In reference to claims 32, 41 and 46, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 31, 40 and 45 respectively. Since Markus et al. discloses a measure of block matching provides a measure of how well the candidate block matches a reference image or reference block (see paragraph 60), the Examiner interprets that the processing of Markus et al. at least inherently considers “how well” the block “equals” the reference block (e.g. “an equal match chain.”)
In reference to claims 33, 42 and 47, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 32, 41 and 46 respectively above. Markus et al. further utilizing a rate distortion optimization score for the block being evaluated when performing an encoded assisted data video encoding (see paragraphs 51-52, 60-61 and Figures 1 & 12). Note, the Examiner interprets such a rate distortion optimization (RDO) score of Markus et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “hyperparameter” as the techniques of video encoding using the encoding assisted data in Markus et al. at least inherently perform the “iterative” processing since they estimate the rate distortion for candidate blocks (see at least paragraphs 62-67). Since Markus et al. utilizes such a RDO score, the score defining a “rate” and “distortion” pair for a block (see paragraph 61), the Examiner interprets the “block matching” process is at least inherently affected therewith as varying the selected blocks due to rate/distortion is the purpose of such a score.
In reference to claims 34, 43 and 48, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 31, 40 and 45 respectively. Markus et al. discloses a measure of block matching provides a measure of how well the candidate block matches a reference image or reference block (see paragraph 60) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to a “best match” as claimed.
In reference to claims 35, 44 and 49, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 31, 40 and 45 respectively. Kothandaraman et al. explicitly disclose utilizing an LZ77 encoder (see at least paragraphs 38, 227 and 232) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to a “lossless data compressor.”
In reference to claims 37 and 51, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 31 and 45 respectively. Kothandaraman et al. discloses that the number of chunks is customizable such that the chunk size will cover the entire MiP resolution of texture data (see paragraph 307).
In reference to claim 38, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 31 above. Kothandaraman et al. discloses the techniques of the invention operating in an encoder and decoder pipeline (see Figure 14). Kothandaraman et al. further explicitly discloses the invention operating with a graphics processor with access to multiple memory/storage units (see paragraphs 47-50, 102-104 and Figures 1-3). Note, it is clear that the operations of Kothandaraman et al. disclose the claimed elements regarding the origin of encoded data and “providing” the encoded data to “at least one processor” as the structure of at least the encoder and decoder in combination with the details of each computing processor/memory architecture outline above at least inherently teach such limitations. Lastly, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “A method of providing a virtual environment in connection with a computing system…” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In reference to claim 39, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 38 above. Kothandaraman et al. discloses the techniques of the invention operating in an encoder and decoder pipeline (see Figure 14). Kothandaraman et al. further explicitly discloses the invention operating with a graphics processor with access to multiple memory/storage units (see paragraphs 47-50, 102-104 and Figures 1-3). Kothandaraman et al. discloses the processor executing instructions to perform the invention (see at least paragraphs 46, 49, 67, 188). Markus et al. also discloses performing the techniques of the invention utilizing software instructions executable by a processor and stored on non-transitory computer readable storage media (paragraph 74).
In reference to claim 40, claim 40 is similar in scope to claim 31 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, claim 40 further recites, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer to perform…” Kothandaraman et al. discloses the techniques of the invention operating in an encoder and decoder pipeline (see Figure 14). Kothandaraman et al. further explicitly discloses the invention operating with a graphics processor with access to multiple memory/storage units (see paragraphs 47-50, 102-104 and Figures 1-3). Kothandaraman et al. discloses the processor executing instructions to perform the invention (see at least paragraphs 46, 49, 67, 188). Markus et al. also discloses performing the techniques of the invention utilizing software instructions executable by a processor and stored on non-transitory computer readable storage media (paragraph 74).
In reference to claim 45, claim 45 is similar in scope to claim 31 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, claim 45 further recites, “A texture encoding system, comprising: a data store storing a texture; a memory and at least one processor configured to…” Kothandaraman et al. discloses the techniques of the invention operating in an encoder and decoder pipeline (see Figures 14 and 18). Kothandaraman et al. further explicitly discloses the invention operating with a graphics processor with access to multiple memory/storage units (see paragraphs 47-50, 102-104 and Figures 1-3). Kothandaraman et al. discloses the processor executing instructions to perform the invention (see at least paragraphs 46, 49, 67, 188). Markus et al. also discloses performing the techniques of the invention utilizing software instructions executable by a processor and stored on non-transitory computer readable storage media (paragraph 74).
In reference to claim 52, Kothandaraman et al. and Markus et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 31 above. Kothandaraman et al. discloses the techniques of the invention operating in an encoder and decoder pipeline (see Figure 14). Kothandaraman et al. further explicitly discloses the invention operating with a graphics processor with access to multiple memory/storage units (see paragraphs 47-50, 102-104 and Figures 1-3). Kothandaraman et al. discloses the processor executing instructions to perform the invention (see at least paragraphs 46, 49, 67, 188). Markus et al. also discloses performing the techniques of the invention utilizing software instructions executable by a processor and stored on non-transitory computer readable storage media (paragraph 74). Note, it is clear that the operations of Kothandaraman et al. disclose the claimed elements regarding the origin of encoded data and “providing” the encoded data to “at least one processor” as the structure of at least the encoder and decoder in combination with the details of each computing processor/memory architecture outline above at least inherently teach such limitations. Lastly, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “…which a virtual environment is displayable…” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 31-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 10-13 of co-pending Application No. 18/525,178 (reference application, claim version dated 12/22/25). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 31-36 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the co-pending application claims 1, 2 and 10-13 as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following is a claim comparison of claim 31 of the instant application and claims 1 and 10 of co-pending Application no. 18/525,178:
Application No. 18/525,519 – Claim 31
Application No. 18/525,178 – Claims 1 & 10
A method of encoding a texture, the method comprising: (line 1)
A method of encoding a texture, the method comprising: (line 1)
encoding each of a plurality of blocks into which the texture has been divided into a plurality of block bitstreams; (lines 2-3)
dividing the texture into a plurality of blocks; encoding each of the blocks into a plurality of block bitstreams, each of the block bitstreams (lines 3-5)
for each block, selecting up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams; (line 4)
for each block, selecting the block bitstreams (line 7)
for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained; (line 5-7)
for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained, the data chunks for the respective selected block bitstream starting from each position of the respective selected block bitstream and spanning until the end of the of the respective selected block bitstream such that the respective data chunk has a minimum data chunk size, wherein data chunks of different sizes are obtainable for the selected bitstreams; (lines 10-15)
detecting collisions among the obtained data chunks; (line 8)
detecting collisions among the obtained data chunks; (line 16)
based on the detected collisions, forming match chains with redundant data chunks such that, for each match chain, the redundant data chunks therein represent a common value of an associated block bitstream; (lines 9-11)
based on the detected collisions, forming match chains with redundant data chunks such that, for each match chain, the redundant data chunks therein represent a common truncated value of an associated block bitstream; (lines 17-19)
iteratively selecting a set of match chains from among the formed match chains based on a hyperparameter, wherein at least some potential match chains are determined to be not selectable in the iterative selection and are not considered during the formation of the match chains; and (lines 12-15)
iteratively selecting the best match chains from among the formed match chains, the best match chains being determined using a hyperparameter; (lines 20-21)
The method of claim 1, wherein match chains that are determined to be not selectable in the iterative selection are not considered for the formation of the match chains. (claim 10)
obtaining a lossy encoding of the texture from the selected set of match chains. (line 16)
obtaining a lossy encoding of the texture from the iteratively selected best match chains. (line 22)
In reference to claim 31, claim 31 of the instant application is anticipated by co-pending application claims 1 and 10 in that the combination of claims 1 and 10 of the co-pending application contain all the limitations of claim 31 of the instant application. The Examiner notes claim 10 depends directly from claim 1 in the co-pending application. Claim 31 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier co-pending claims and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 32 of the instant application can be found almost word-for-word in co-pending claim 11 and therefore is unpatentable over the previous co-pending claim.
Claim 33 of the instant application can be found almost word-for-word in co-pending claim 12 and therefore is unpatentable over the previous co-pending claim.
Claim 34 of the instant application can be found almost word-for-word in co-pending claim 13 and therefore is unpatentable over the previous co-pending claim.
Claim 35 of the instant application can be found almost word-for-word in co-pending claim 2 and therefore is unpatentable over the previous co-pending claim.
Claim 36 of the instant application can be in lines 7-9 of co-pending claim 1 and therefore is unpatentable over the previous co-pending claim.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Turner et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0189068)
Turner et al. discloses methods for image compression and decompression including processing chunks and overlays or bridging of chunks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
1/22/26