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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/09/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 04/22/2026. However, new rejections have been entered as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 7, filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10, “Besenthal does not teach or suggest " post-processing comprises blending borders between regions of the frame having different subsampling characteristics." Besenthal is directed to multi-resolution rendering and reconstruction of computationally expensive lighting effects, in which image data is reconstructed from sub-images rendered at different resolutions. Besenthal's teaching is not directed to post-processing based on subsampling characteristics assigned to regions of a rendered frame. Thus, Besenthal fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features as presently recited in claim 7”. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Besenthal being “directed to multi-resolution rendering and reconstruction of computationally expensive lighting effects, in which, in which image data is reconstructed from sub-images rendered at different resolutions” does not preclude the reference from teaching the aforementioned limitations. Besenthal describes an image, which is divided into sub-images based on resolution. While these sub-images are not necessarily adjacent to each and are more commonly referred to as masks in the art, they are still regions of an image, having different resolutions (subsampling characteristics). Furthermore, these sub-images are rendered (described in section 3.2), and then “as the final step”, i.e. post-processing of the rendered sub-images, involves blending the borders of the regions. Therefore, examiner maintains the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Besenthal with Iqbal (now Iqbal in view of Biermann) in order to improve rendering speed.
Applicant further argues on page 10, that there is no articulated motivation to combine Besenthal with Iqbal in the manner proposed in the office action. Applicant states:
“Iqbal is directed to sensor-level region of interest (ROI) acquisition for object tracking, while Besenthal is directed to multi-resolution reconstruction of lighting effects in a rendering pipeline. The Office Action's assertion that Iqbal and Besenthal are in the same general field of rendering techniques does not provide a sufficient rationale to modify Iqbal to incorporate Besenthal's reconstruction-stage blending operations into a foveated rendering post-processing pipeline based on assigned subsampling characteristics.”
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Besenthal is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the fact that Besenthal is directed to “to multi-resolution reconstruction of lighting effects in a rendering pipeline”, does not change the applicability of its blending techniques, which are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned .
Applicant further states, with respect to the motivation of combining Iqbal in view of Besenthal:
“Moreover, Besenthal does not disclose or suggest that its border blending is used to improve rendering speed; rather, it is performed as part of a reconstruction process to reduce visual artifacts arising from multi-resolution rendering. Accordingly, Besenthal's teachings do not provide a reasoned basis to incorporate its blending operation into Iqbal's ROI-based visual tracking for the stated purpose of improving rendering speed.”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, while Besenthal does utilize the border blending process to reduce visual artifacts, this is a process which can affect rendering speed. Additionally, blending the sub-images is essential for processing of Besenthal, without it there would be no generated image. In this manner, it is impossible for the blending process to not affect rendering speed. Furthermore, section 5.1 of Besenthal states “Despite the additional rendering steps needed, our technique outperforms naïve rendering in all cases. For a higher number of samples our technique will perform better, since more processing on the GPU can be skipped due to lower resolution rendering”. This skipped processing due to lower resolution is directly related to the blending process, which applies weights and alpha values to the various sub-images for blending.
For all of the above reasons Examiner maintains the application of Besenthal. However, for clarity of the record Examiner has elaborated on the motivation to combine.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, 11, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O. Iqbal, V. I. T. Muro, S. Katoch, A. Spanias and S. Jayasuriya, "Adaptive Subsampling for ROI-Based Visual Tracking: Algorithms and FPGA Implementation," in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 90507-90522, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3200755. (hereinafter "Iqbal") in view of Biermann (US 7,969,444 Bl).
Regarding claim 1, Iqbal teaches a method comprising: rendering a frame comprising a plurality of regions (figs. 3, 10, 12), each region having subsampling characteristics (Section III B – the various object detection methods are used to determine subsample masks and do so by producing information for the region of interest, which is analogous to subsampling characteristics); and post-processing the frame based on information regarding the plurality of regions and the subsampling characteristics of each region (fig. 11, pg. 5 left column paragraph 8 – “This enables performance analysis of the ATOM and DiMP methods in the context of adaptive subsampling. Further, we also study what bearing the Kalman filter has on the performance”, section V B – “Our algorithm performance takes into consideration the delay of capturing an image, performing preprocessing, detection, postprocessing and updating the Kalman filter on every keyframe.”)
Iqbal fails to teach wherein the post-processing includes blending borders between adjacent regions.
However, Biermann teaches wherein the post-processing includes blending borders between adjacent regions (col. 5 lines 19-23). Biermann describes a distributed rendering system which divides a texture map for rendering on multiple GPUs. When re-combining the sections, overlaps need to be resolved. Biermann does this by “post processing ( e.g., filtering and interpolation for smoothing, blending, etc.) as mentioned above in an effort to resolve pixels at the edge of the split between adjacent parts”. Biermann is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of distributed or subdivided rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Iqbal’s post-processing to include Biermann’s blending based post processing because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Iqbal’s post-processing and Biermann’s blending perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being post-processing to remove unnecessary or excessive pixels (i.e. “to resolve pixels at the edge of the split between adjacent parts”, Biermann col. 5 lines 22/23). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Iqbal’s post-processing by replacing it with Biermann’s post processing by blending. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the method of claim 1. Biermann further teaches rendering the frame at a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Col. 1 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 3, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the method of claim 2. Iqbal further teaches wherein post-processing the frame comprises post-processing the frame at an accelerated processing unit (APU) (Section V A “Hardware implementation” – “The image capture, preprocessing, digital ROI, Kalman filter update and prediction steps, and any other postprocessing required by each specific tracker is done in the processing system of the FPGA board.” The FPGA is a type of APU) based on a frame rate of a video stream comprising the frame (pg. 9 left column paragraph 2 – “R represents frame rate (fixed at 30 fps)”, pg. 5 right column paragraph 4 under “Datasets” – “The frames rates of all videos in our test datasets are 30 FPS”; All processing is fixed at the frame rate of the video stream, this also applies to post processing)
Regarding claim 4, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The method of claim 3. Iqbal further teaches profiling an impact of performing post-processing of the frame (fig. 11, section IV Metrics) on the frame rate of the video stream (pg. 9 left column paragraph 2 – “R represents frame rate (fixed at 30 fps)”, pg. 5 right column paragraph 4 under “Datasets” – “The frames rates of all videos in our test datasets are 30 FPS”; All processing is fixed at the frame rate of the video stream, this also applies to post processing) and post-processing the frame at the APU (Section V A “Hardware implementation” – “The image capture, preprocessing, digital ROI, Kalman filter update and prediction steps, and any other postprocessing required by each specific tracker is done in the processing system of the FPGA board.” The FPGA is a type of APU) based further on the profiling (pg. 5 left column paragraph 6 – right column paragraph 1, “we modify the algorithms and allow the output ROI of one image frame D(I(x; y; t)) = bt dictate the ROI sensor mask of the next incoming frame”, “This enables performance analysis of the ATOM and DiMP methods in the context of adaptive subsampling”, “In this variation of the algorithm, the ATOM and DiMP are relegated to the sole purpose of feeding external measurements to the Kalman filter after certain intervals such that the Kalman filter is able to update and correct its trajectory”; Iqbal uses various methods of analysis and post-processing based on this analysis, repeatedly, for the frames in the video).
Biermann further teaches performing post-processing of the frame at the GPU (Col.4 lines 31-32 – “Additional post processing, such as filtering or interpolation, may also occur within each GPU 206a-d.”)
Regarding claim 8, Iqbal teaches A processing system, comprising: render a frame comprising a plurality of regions (figs. 3, 10, 12), each region having subsampling characteristics (Section III B – the various object detection methods are used to determine subsample masks and do so by producing information for the region of interest, which is analogous to subsampling characteristics); and an accelerated processing unit (APU) configured to post-process the frame (Section V A “Hardware implementation” – “The image capture, preprocessing, digital ROI, Kalman filter update and prediction steps, and any other postprocessing required by each specific tracker is done in the processing system of the FPGA board.” The FGPA is a type of APU) based on information regarding the plurality of regions and the subsampling characteristics of each region (fig. 11, pg. 5 left column paragraph 8 – “This enables performance analysis of the ATOM and DiMP methods in the context of adaptive subsampling. Further, we also study what bearing the Kalman filter has on the performance”, section V B – “Our algorithm performance takes into consideration the delay of capturing an image, performing preprocessing, detection, postprocessing and updating the Kalman filter on every keyframe.”),
Iqbal fails to explicitly teach a graphics processing unit (GPU) configured to render a frame; wherein the post-processing includes blending borders between adjacent regions.
However, Biermann teaches rendering the frame at a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Col. 1 lines 61-63); wherein the post-processing includes blending borders between adjacent regions (col. 5 lines 19-23). Biermann is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of distributed or subdivided rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Iqbal’s post-processing to include Biermann’s blending based post processing because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Iqbal’s post-processing and Biermann’s blending perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being post-processing to remove unnecessary or excessive pixels. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Iqbal’s post-processing by replacing it with Biermann’s post processing by blending. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10 Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the processing system of claim 9. Iqbal further teaches profiling circuitry configured to profile an impact of performing post-processing of the frame (figs. 3-7, 11, Section IV Metrics) on the frame rate of the video stream (pg. 9 left column paragraph 2 – “R represents frame rate (fixed at 30 fps)”, pg. 5 right column paragraph 4 under “Datasets” – “The frames rates of all videos in our test datasets are 30 FPS”; All processing is fixed at the frame rate of the video stream, this also applies to post processing).
Biermann further teaches performing post-processing of the frame at the GPU (Col.4 lines 31-32 – “Additional post processing, such as filtering or interpolation, may also occur within each GPU 206a-d.”)
Regarding claim 11, Iqbal in view of Biermann teach The processing system of claim 10. Iqbal further teaches wherein the profiling circuitry is further configured to task the APU with post-processing the frame (Section V A “Hardware implementation” – “The image capture, preprocessing, digital ROI, Kalman filter update and prediction steps, and any other postprocessing required by each specific tracker is done in the processing system of the FPGA board.” The FGPA is a type of APU) and the impact exceeding a threshold (Section IV Metrics).
Iqbal fails to explicitly teach post-processing the frame in response to the impact exceeding a threshold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the described IoU threshold in the process of tracking performance (described in the “Metrics” section) with the updating of ROI predictions based on performance analysis because the IoU threshold is representative of performance.
Regarding 15, Iqbal teaches A processing system, comprising: render a frame comprising a plurality of regions (figs. 3, 10, 12) based on received information regarding the plurality of regions and subsampling characteristics of each region (Section III B – the various object detection methods are used to determine subsample masks and do so by producing information for the region of interest, which is analogous to subsampling characteristics), the plurality of regions comprising a first region having first subsampling characteristics (fig. 1, 2) and a second region having second subsampling characteristics different from the first subsampling characteristics (fig. 3 – regions have different IoU values); and post-process the frame based on the received information regarding the plurality of regions and subsampling characteristics of each region (fig. 11, pg. 5 left column paragraph 8 – “This enables performance analysis of the ATOM and DiMP methods in the context of adaptive subsampling. Further, we also study what bearing the Kalman filter has on the performance”, section V B – “Our algorithm performance takes into consideration the delay of capturing an image, performing preprocessing, detection, postprocessing and updating the Kalman filter on every keyframe.”),
Iqbal fails to explicitly teach a graphics processing unit (GPU); wherein the post-processing includes blending borders between adjacent regions.
However, Biermann teaches a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Col. 1 lines 61-63); wherein the post-processing includes blending borders between adjacent regions (col. 5 lines 19-23). Biermann is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of distributed or subdivided rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Iqbal’s post-processing to include Biermann’s blending based post processing because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Iqbal’s post-processing and Biermann’s blending perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being post-processing to remove unnecessary or excessive pixels. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Iqbal’s post-processing by replacing it with Biermann’s post processing by blending. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 15. Iqbal further teaches profiling circuitry configured to profile an impact of performing post-processing of the frame (figs. 3-7, 11, Section IV Metrics) on the frame rate of the video stream (pg. 9 left column paragraph 2 – “R represents frame rate (fixed at 30 fps)”, pg. 5 right column paragraph 4 under “Datasets” – “The frames rates of all videos in our test datasets are 30 FPS”; All processing is fixed at the frame rate of the video stream, this also applies to post processing).
Biermann further teaches performing post-processing of the frame at the GPU (Col.4 lines 31-32 – “Additional post processing, such as filtering or interpolation, may also occur within each GPU 206a-d.”)
Regarding 17, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the processing system of claim 16. Iqbal further teaches an accelerated processing unit (APU) configured to post-process the frame (Section V A “Hardware implementation” – “The image capture, preprocessing, digital ROI, Kalman filter update and prediction steps, and any other postprocessing required by each specific tracker is done in the processing system of the FPGA board.” The FPGA is a type of APU) based on the plurality of regions and the subsampling characteristics of each region (fig. 11, pg. 5 left column paragraph 8 – “This enables performance analysis of the ATOM and DiMP methods in the context of adaptive subsampling. Further, we also study what bearing the Kalman filter has on the performance”, section V B – “Our algorithm performance takes into consideration the delay of capturing an image, performing preprocessing, detection, postprocessing and updating the Kalman filter on every keyframe.”), and the impact exceeding a threshold (Section IV Metrics).
Iqbal fails to explicitly teach post-processing the frame in response to the impact exceeding a threshold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the described IoU threshold in the process of tracking performance (described in the “Metrics” section) with the updating of ROI predictions based on performance analysis because the IoU threshold is representative of performance.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal in view of Biermann as applied to claim 1, 8, 17, and 15 respectively and in further view of Anjul Patney, Marco Salvi, Joohwan Kim, Anton Kaplanyan, Chris Wyman, Nir Benty, David Luebke, and Aaron Lefohn. 2016. Towards foveated rendering for gaze-tracked virtual reality. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 6, Article 179 (November 2016), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2980179.2980246 (hereinafter "Patney").
Regarding claim 5, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the method of claim 1. Iqbal further teaches wherein the region is further based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame (Title, last paragraph of Section I – “We have identified a scope for energy optimization in image sensors, and we have shown how predictive visual tracking can be exploited for selective ROI readout for power-hungry vision applications.”).
Iqbal fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of regions is further based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame.
However, Patney teaches wherein the plurality of regions is further based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame (abstract, pg. 5 paragraph 4 of procedure, section 3.1). Patney is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of foveated rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the object detection based subsampling methods of Iqbal with the foveated rendering techniques of Patney, which includes tracking a gaze of a viewer, in order to improve performance, and provide a perceptually improved experience.
Regarding claim 12, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 8. Iqbal further teaches wherein the APU is further configured to assign the plurality of regions of the frame and subsampling characteristics of each region (section V paragraph 1, section III A “Video Subsampling and ROI prediction”, Section III B – the various object detection methods are used to determine subsample masks and do so by producing information for the region of interest, which is analogous to subsampling characteristics).
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame.
However, Patney teaches wherein the plurality of regions is further based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame (abstract, pg. 5 paragraph 4 of procedure, section 3.1). Patney is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of foveated rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Iqbal in view of Biermann to specify implementation of foveated rendering.
Regarding claim 13, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 8. Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach wherein the subsampling characteristics comprise at least one of a degree and a direction of subsampling applied to each region.
However, Patney teaches wherein the subsampling characteristics comprise at least one of a degree and a direction of subsampling applied to each region (fig. 9, section 3.1.1 – “The size of the subsampling filter increases linearly with retinal eccentricity.”). The motivation to combine Iqbal in view of Biermann with Patney would have been the same as that of claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 17. Iqbal further teaches wherein the APU is further configured to assign the plurality of regions of the frame and subsampling characteristics of each region (section V paragraph 1, section III A “Video Subsampling and ROI prediction”, Section III B – the various object detection methods are used to determine subsample masks and do so by producing information for the region of interest, which is analogous to subsampling characteristics).
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach so based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame.
However, Patney teaches wherein the plurality of regions is further based on tracking of a gaze of a viewer of the frame (abstract, pg. 5 paragraph 4 of procedure, section 3.1). Patney is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of foveated rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Iqbal in view of Biermann to specify implementation of foveated rendering.
Regarding claim 19, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 15.
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach wherein the subsampling characteristics comprise at least one of a degree and a direction of subsampling applied to each region.
However, Patney teaches wherein the subsampling characteristics comprise at least one of a degree and a direction of subsampling applied to each region (fig. 9, section 3.1.1 – “The size of the subsampling filter increases linearly with retinal eccentricity.”). The motivation to combine would have been the same as that of claim 18.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal in view of Biermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teramuchi (US 2019/0296062 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the method of claim 1.
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach wherein the subsampling characteristics define a pattern of unrendered pixel locations.
However, Teramuchi teaches wherein the subsampling characteristics define a pattern of unrendered pixel locations (paragraphs [0034], [0064], [0077], [0078], [0107], [0113], [0114]). Terauchi describes correcting a “defective pixel” in a multi sensor imaging system. This correction involves dividing images by considering the detection of the “defective pixel”. In this manner, the defective pixel information, which includes position, can be considered analogous to a subsampling characteristic defining an unrendered pixel location. The method in which a replacement pixel is determined can be considered to consist of a pattern of unrendered pixel locations. This is because the replacement pixel is based on the unrendered pixel locations as well as adjacent pixels. In other words, a pattern is defined for the defective pixel which includes adjacent pixel information, and can be specific to an image region. Terauchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Terauchi with Iqbal in view Biermann in order correct unrendered pixels, in turn improving image quality (Terauchi, paragraph [0126]).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal in view of Biermann as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively and in further view Besenthal, Simon & Maisch, Sebastian & Ropinski, Timo. (2019). Multi-Resolution Rendering for Computationally Expensive Lighting Effects. 10.48550/arXiv.1906.04576. (hereinafter "Besenthal").
Regarding claim 7, Iqbal teaches the method of claim 1. Biermann further teaches wherein post-processing comprises blending borders between regions of the frame (col. 5 lines 15-23)
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach blending borders between regions of the frame having different subsampling characteristics.
However, Besenthal teaches blending borders between regions of the frame (section 3.3 & 4.2) having different subsampling characteristics (figs. 2 & 3 and their descriptions – the different resolutions of sub-images are analogous to different subsampling characteristics). Besenthal is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of rendering techniques. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Biermann’s blending of equally proportioned subdivisions to include Besenthal’s blending of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Besenthal’s blending of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics is one of a predictable and ascertainable group of similar features. This group addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of dividing an image for further processing with a reasonable level of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to modify Biermann’s blending of equally proportioned subdivisions to include Besenthal’s blending of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need (as discussed above) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches the processing system of claim 8.
wherein the system is further configured to render the frame response to a frame rate of a video stream comprising the frame exceeding a frame rate threshold (“The computationally inexpensive Kalman filter is used as a forecaster, and frames are skipped whenever the tracker is slower than the world frame rate.” Skipping rendering when the frame rate is below a threshold renders only frames that are at or above the world frame rate, this is analogous to rendering a frame in response to a frame rate exceeding a threshold).
Biermann further teaches wherein the GPU is further configured to render the frame (Col.4 lines 31-32).
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to explicitly teach render the frame with a plurality of regions having different subsampling characteristics.
However, Besenthal teaches render the frame with a plurality of regions having different subsampling characteristics (figs. 2 & 3 and their descriptions – the different resolutions of sub-images are analogous to different subsampling characteristics). Besenthal is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of rendering techniques. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Biermann’s rendering of equally proportioned subdivisions to include Besenthal’s rendering of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Besenthal’s rendering of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics is one of a predictable and ascertainable group of similar features. This group addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of dividing an image for further processing with a reasonable level of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to modify Biermann’s rendering of equally proportioned subdivisions to include Besenthal’s rendering of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need (as discussed above) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 14, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 8, wherein the APU is configured to post-process the frame (Iqbal Section V A “Hardware implementation” – “The image capture, preprocessing, digital ROI, Kalman filter update and prediction steps, and any other postprocessing required by each specific tracker is done in the processing system of the FPGA board.” The FGPA is a type of APU).
Biermann further teaches blending borders between regions (col. 5 lines 19-23)
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach blending borders between regions of the frame having different subsampling characteristics.
However, Besenthal teaches blending borders between regions of the frame (section 3.3 & 4.2) having different subsampling characteristics (figs. 2 & 3 and their descriptions – the different resolutions of sub-images are analogous to different subsampling characteristics). Besenthal is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of rendering techniques. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Besenthal with Iqbal in view of Biermann in order to improve rendering speed. The motivation to combine Besenthal with Iqbal in view of Bierman would have been the same as that of claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, Iqbal in view of Biermann teaches The processing system of claim 15. Biermann further teaches wherein the GPU is configured to post-process the frame (Col.4 lines 31-32) by blending borders between regions of the frame (col. 5 lines 19-23).
Iqbal in view of Biermann fails to teach blending borders between regions of the frame having different subsampling characteristics.
However, Besenthal teaches blending borders between regions of the frame (section 3.3 & 4.2) having different subsampling characteristics (figs. 2 & 3 and their descriptions – the different resolutions of sub-images are analogous to different subsampling characteristics). Besenthal is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of rendering techniques. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Biermann’s blending of equally proportioned subdivisions to include Besenthal’s blending of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Besenthal’s blending of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics is one of a predictable and ascertainable group of similar features. This group addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of dividing an image for further processing with a reasonable level of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to modify Biermann’s blending of equally proportioned subdivisions to include Besenthal’s blending of subdivisions based on different subsampling characteristics since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need (as discussed above) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights