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 § 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, 2, 9, 13, 14, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruud et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0027533), referred herein as Ruud, in view of Clarberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0218264), referred herein as Clarberg.
Regarding claim 1, Ruud teaches a polygon processing method, performed by a data processing device (fig 1), the method comprising:
determining a second target bounding box of a polygon (fig 5, second bounding box 86; paragraphs 180 and 188; a second bounding box is determined for the polygon);
dividing the second target bounding box into a plurality of squares, wherein a predetermined point of the second target bounding box serves as a coordinate origin (fig 5, squares 81 within bounding box 86, and coordinate origins 82; paragraph 187; the bounding box is split into 9 squares, each with a predetermined point serving as a coordinate origin);
determining a square among the plurality of squares that has an intersection region with the polygon as a target square (fig 5, the square central to the polygon, and target square 89; paragraph 183; paragraph 190, lines 1-5; a target square is determined to intersect the region with the polygon);
generating a target polygon based on connecting sides of the target square, and processing the target polygon such that it corresponds to an original polygon (paragraph 185; paragraph 190, the last 4 lines; based on the target square, data for the target polygon is generated that corresponds to the original polygon being processed).
Ruud does not explicitly teach that the polygon is a moved polygon, or moving the target polygon to a position based on a motion vector.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Clarberg teaches a polygon processing method comprising determining a bounding box of a polygon and dividing a screen space into a plurality of squares that have an intersection region with the polygon (figs 1 and 2; paragraph 23, lines 4-6; paragraph 25, lines 1-6), wherein the polygon is a moved polygon, and a target polygon is moved to a position based on a motion vector (figs 2 and 3; paragraphs 27 and 28; paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 39).
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 moving polygon processing of Clarberg with the polygon processing of Ruud because this can greatly reduce the number of samples that need to be processed, which saves processing and storage resources (see, for example, Clarberg, paragraph 23, lines 1-9; paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 2, Ruud in view of Clarberg teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the motion vector based on a first target bounding box of the original polygon; and moving the original polygon and the first target bounding box based on the motion vector to result in the moved polygon (Ruud, paragraphs 180 and 183; paragraphs 188 and 190, first bounding box 85 or 83; Clarberg, figs 2 and 3; paragraphs 27 and 28; paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 42; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ruud in view of Clarberg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the square among the plurality of squares that has the intersection region with the moved polygon as the target square comprises: determining a center point of each square, and determining a square whose center point is located inside the original polygon obtained after movement as the target square (Ruud, fig 5; paragraphs 187 and 190; each square 81 has determined center points 82, and square 89 is within the polygon 88 after processing; Clarberg, figs 2 and 3; paragraphs 27 and 28; paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 39; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1); and
determining a square whose center point is not located inside the original polygon obtained after movement and whose square boundary intersects with the original polygon obtained after movement as the target square (Ruud, fig 5, any of the squares outside of polygon 88; paragraphs 184 and 185; Clarberg, figs 2 and 3; paragraphs 27 and 28; paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 39; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the computer readable media, processor, and instructions, which are taught by Rudd, paragraph 131); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2 and 9, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 24, Rudd teaches a polygon processing apparatus, comprising one or more processors, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the polygon processing apparatus to (Rudd, paragraph 131):
obtain an original polygon, and determine a first target bounding box of the original polygon, and determine bounds of the original polygon based on the first target bounding box, and create a revised polygon (paragraphs 180 and 183; paragraphs 188 and 190; first bounding box 85 or 83);
determine a second target bounding box of the revised polygon (fig 5, second bounding box 86; paragraphs 180 and 188; a second bounding box is determined for the polygon), and
divide the second target bounding box into a plurality of squares, a predetermined point of the second target bounding box being a coordinate origin (fig 5, squares 81 within bounding box 86, and coordinate origins 82; paragraph 187; the bounding box is split into 9 squares, each with a predetermined point serving as a coordinate origin);
determine a square among the plurality of squares that has an intersection region with the original polygon as a target square (fig 5, the square central to the polygon, and target square 89; paragraph 183; paragraph 190, lines 1-5; a target square is determined to intersect the region with the polygon), and
generate a target polygon based on connecting sides of the target square, and process the target polygon such that it corresponds to the original polygon (paragraph 185; paragraph 190, the last 4 lines; based on the target square, data for the target polygon is generated that corresponds to the original polygon being processed).
Ruud does not explicitly teach that the instructions determine a motion vector and create a revised polygon by moving the original polygon and the first target bounding box based on the motion vector, determine squares that have an intersection region with the polygon obtained after movement, and move the target polygon to a position based on the motion vector.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Clarberg teaches an apparatus comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to (fig 12; paragraph 112) determine a bounding box of a polygon and divide a screen space into a plurality of squares that have an intersection region with the polygon (figs 1 and 2; paragraph 23, lines 4-6; paragraph 25, lines 1-6), determine a motion vector and create a revised polygon by moving an original polygon and a first target bounding box based on the motion vector (figs 2 and 3; paragraphs 27 and 28; paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 39), determine squares that have an intersection region with the polygon obtained after movement (paragraph 23, lines 4-6; paragraph 25, lines 1-6; paragraph 27), and move the target polygon to a position based on the motion vector (figs 2 and 3; paragraphs 27 and 28; paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 39).
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 moving polygon processing of Clarberg with the polygon processing of Ruud because this can greatly reduce the number of samples that need to be processed, which saves processing and storage resources (see, for example, Clarberg, paragraph 23, lines 1-9; paragraph 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10-12, 15-20, 22, and 23 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as described in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have overcome the claim objections; thus, they are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments to claim 24 positively recite the structure performing the functions; thus this claim is no longer interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have overcome the 101 rejections; thus, they are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On pages 15 and 16 of the Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that Clarberg does not teach the motion vector because Clarberg’s moving bounding box is equated to the motion vector, but a moving bounding is not the same because a bounding box is static, while a motion vector has direction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
It is first noted that the bounding box in Clarberg is not equated with the motion vector, nor is the bounding box static in Clarberg. As shown in the citations, the bounding box is very clearly a moving bounding box that may encompass moving polygons. The citations then explicitly state that the movement is based on a motion vector: as one example, inter alia, paragraph 39 states, “The moving bounding box has the vertices qi and ri at t=0 and t=1, respectively. Its vertices at any given time t are given by linear interpolation as pi(t)=(1-t)q i+ tri = qi + t(ri - qi) where the term ri - qi is a motion vector.” Other sections additionally discuss the polygons and bounding boxes moving based on motion vectors, and that the moving polygons and bounding boxes have direction. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Clarberg clearly teaches this claim feature, and that the combination of Ruud and Clarberg teaches claim 1.
On page 16 of the Applicant's Remarks, the Applicant argues that the remaining independent claims are not taught by the prior art for reasons similar to those discussed in regard to claim 1, and that the dependent claims are not taught by the prior art, insomuch as they depend from claims that are not taught by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments, for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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