DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and similar claims in substance under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ning et al. (US 11,431,955 B1).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 4 and 17 be found allowable, claims 22 and 21, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0114702 A1) in view of Ning et al. (US 11,431,955 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method comprising: at a device having a display (Paragraph 0049, display), one or more processors, and non-transitory memory; (Paragraph 0062, processor and memory) obtaining a currently rendered image; (Paragraph 0046 and figure 1, element 110, upscaled image of a low resolution image) obtaining an accumulation image based on previously rendered images; (Paragraph 0049 and figure 1, prior high resolution images that can be obtained from a history buffer that stores prior high resolution output images created from a blending of other prior images) generating an output image based on the currently rendered image and the accumulation image, wherein the output image includes a first output pixel at a first output pixel location having a first output pixel value based on a first weighting of the currently rendered image and the accumulation image and the output image includes a second output pixel at a second output pixel location having a second output pixel value based on a second weighting of the currently rendered image and the accumulation image, wherein the second weighting is different than the first weighting; (Paragraphs 0049 and 0055, blending the upscaled image with a prior high resolution image to produce a high resolution output image using different blending weights for different pixel locations) and displaying, on the display, the output image (Paragraph 0049, presentation of the high resolution output image on the display). Liu does not clearly disclose a first output pixel at a first output location, in a periphery, a second output pixel in a second output pixel location, in a fovea, and wherein the second weighting gives greater weight to the currently rendered image, relative to the accumulation image, than the first weighting. Ning discloses foveated rendering for pixels areas in a periphery and center based on a gaze with each area rendered differently that may have aliasing artifacts (Column 11, line 63 – column 12, line 10) that can be corrected for by blending previous and current frames (Column 12, lines 11-29) using different weights that indicate how much a previous frame is blended with a current frame (Column 13, line 65 – column 14, line 21) and uses rejection logic that can determine to not blend the pixels of the current frame with the previous frame in the center areas if there is for example a moving object (Column 15, lines 12-19). Ning’s technique of foveated rendering with anti-aliasing by blending of peripheral and center areas of a previous and current frame using weights based on motion would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the blending of an image with prior images using weights to produce a high resolution image of Liu and the results would have been predictable in foveated rendering between an image and prior images using weights determined by motion to produce a high resolution image with reduced aliasing. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the second weighting includes weighting the currently rendered image to one and weighting the accumulation image to zero (Paragraph 0054, the blending weight can be set to a value between 0 and 1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses wherein the first weighting is based on a first scaling factor of the first output pixel location and the second weighting is based on a second scaling factor of the second output pixel location (Paragraph 0055, different blending weights at different pixel locations for blending the upscaled image and prior high resolution image which have their own scaling).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses wherein the first output pixel value is a weighted sum of a currently rendered image pixel value of a currently rendered image pixel at the first output pixel location of the currently rendered image and a function of an accumulation image pixel value of an accumulation image pixel at a corresponding pixel location corresponding to the first output pixel location of the accumulation image (Paragraphs 0049 and 0055, blending of the upscaled image and prior high resolution image using blending weights at sampled locations).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses wherein a weight of the weighted sum is based on a first scaling factor of the first output pixel location (Paragraph 0055, different blending weights at different pixel locations for blending the upscaled image having its own scaling).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses wherein the corresponding pixel location is determined based on the first output pixel location and a reprojection function (Paragraph 0055, samples from the upscaled image and prior image are blended together to produce output pixels at the sampled locations).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses wherein the function of the accumulation image is a filtering function or anti-ghosting function (Paragraph 0055, accumulation with prevention of artifacts including ghosting).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses storing the output image as an updated accumulation image (Figure 1, elements 116 and 118, storing the high resolution output image in the history buffer).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses generating a second output image based on a second currently rendered image and the updated accumulation image (Figure 1, the stored high resolution output image in the history buffer can be used as another prior image for a subsequent upscaled image to be blended with to produce another high resolution output image).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, 21, and 22, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 9 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the first scaling factor includes a horizontal scaling factor and a vertical scaling factor and the first weighting is based on an inverse of the horizontal scaling factor multiplied by an inverse of the vertical scaling factor.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the first scaling factor includes a horizontal scaling factor and a vertical scaling factor and the first weighting is based on the lesser of an inverse of the horizontal scaling factor and an inverse of the vertical scaling factor.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the reprojection function is based on a scaling factor map including the first scaling factor of the first output pixel location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vlachos et al. (US 2019/0304051 A1) discloses foveated rendering with blending of an area between a central and periphery region using weights.
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 PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights