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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0080480 A1, Nishikawa et al. (hereinafter Nishikawa) in view of US 2025/0139415 A1, Kalkunte et al. (hereinafter Kalkunte).
As to claim 1, Nishikawa discloses an apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a method for encoding a binary image (Fig 2), the method comprising:
receiving the binary image (Fig 1: 110, receiving and pre-processing binary image, R, G, B data after RGB conversion being in binary form; Fig 6; pars 0042, 0052);
performing run-length encoding on one of: at least two rows and at least two columns, of pixels in the binary image to produce run-length encoded data (Figs 1, 6-7, performing run-length encoding for the received binary image data, the binary data being organized in arrays of rows and columns; pars 0046, 0052, 0066);
producing differential encoded data by, for at least one value of the run-length encoded data: in response to the run-length encoding having been performed on at least two rows of pixels in the binary image (Fig 1: 141-142, Fig 4; pars 0007-0009, 0038-0039, 0049-0051): subtracting, from the value, a second value of the run-length encoded data where a second value exists, the second value located in a first sequence of values in the run-length encoded data associated with a row of the pixels that is different to a row of the pixels with which the value is associated, and the second value located at a position in the first sequence corresponding to a position of the value in a second sequence of values in the run-length encoded data associated with a row of the pixels with which the value is associated (Fig 1: 110-120, Figs 3-4; pars 0031-0032, 0034-0038);
in response to the run-length encoding having been performed on at least two columns of pixels in the binary image: subtracting, from the value, a second value of the run-length encoded data where a second value exists, the second value located in a first sequence of values in the run-length encoded data associated with a column of the pixels that is different to a column of the pixels with which the value is associated (Fig 1: 120; Figs 3-4; pars 0031, 0034-0036, 0038, subtraction being performed on different rows of binary data representing different color components resulting different compression modes), and the second value located at a position in the first sequence corresponding to a position of the value in a second sequence of values in the run-length encoded data associated with a column of the pixels with which the value is associated (Fig 1: 110-120; Figs 3-4)
performing variable length encoding on the differential encoded data to produce variable length encoded data (Fig 1: 141-143, DPCM being a variable length encoding; Fig 7; pars 0007-0009, 0043-0046); and applying a lossless compressor to the variable length encoded data to produce compressed data, the compressed data being an encoded binary image (Fig 1: 141-0143; pars 0008, 0029, 0034-0036, 0038).
Nishikawa discloses above limitations but not express clearly the data arrangement during various encoding operations.
Kalkunte, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the input image may be represented as an array of pixels, a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns for run-length compression operations (Figs 4, 11, 18B; pars 0059, 0114, 0182, 0236-0237).
Therefore, consider Nishikawa and Kalkunte’s teachings as whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Kalkunte’s teachings on data array configuration and arrangement in Nishikawa’s apparatus for more convenient and efficient encoding/compression operations, memory access arrangement, and parallel implementation.
As to claim 2, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: in response to the run-length encoding having been performed on at least two rows of pixels in the binary image, the first sequence is a sequence of values in the run-length encoded data associated with a row of the pixels that is one of: immediately prior to and immediately after, a row of the pixels with which the value is associated, and in response to the run-length encoding having been performed on at least two columns of pixels in the binary image (Nishikawa: Figs 1, 4, 6-7; Kalkunte: pars 0059, 0114, 0182, 0236-0237), the first sequence is a sequence of values in the run-length encoded data associated with a column of the pixels that is one of: immediately prior to and immediately after, a column of the pixels with which the value is associated (Nishikawa: Figs 1, 4, 6-7; Kalkunte: pars 0059, 0114, 0182, 0236-0237).
As to claim 3, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein performing run-length encoding on one of: at least two rows and at least two columns, of pixels in the binary image to produce run-length encoded data comprises performing run-length encoding respectively on one of: at least two rows and at least two columns, in parallel (Kalkunte: pars 0094, 0105, 0107, 0114-0115, 0237, perform run-length encoding in parallel).
As to claim 4, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein producing differential encoded data comprises producing differential encoded data for at least two values of the run-length encoded data in parallel (Nishikawa: Figs 1, 6-7; Kalkunte: pars 0114-0115).
As to claim 5, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein performing variable-length encoding comprises performing variable-length encoding on at least two values of the differential encoded data in parallel (Nishikawa: Figs 1, 6-7; Kalkunte: pars 0059, 0114, 0182, 0236-0237).
As to claim 8, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lossless compressor is one of: a dictionary compressor, an entropy compressor (Nishikawa: Fig 9; pars 0062-0064, entropy encoder).
As to claim 9, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, the method further comprising sending the compressed data to a device for decoding (Nishikawa: Fig 1, compressed data being sent to lossless decoding unit of the device).
As to claim 12, it essentially recites similar features with broader scope or less details. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 13, Nishikawa as modified discloses the method of claim 12, the method at least partially carried out using hardware logic (Nishikawa: Fig 2; pars 0023-0024, a CPU and related circuitry, memory device being used for implementing the method).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Kalkunte and further in view of US 2018/0121512 A1, Cho et al. (hereinafter Cho).
As to claim 6, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the variable length encoding is byte-wise variable length encoding. Cho, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the variable length encoding can be byte-wise variable length encoding (Fig 4; pars 0043-0044, 0047). Therefore, consider Nishikawa and Cho’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Cho’s teachings in Nishikawa as modified’s apparatus to provide a byte-wise variable length encoding.
As to claim 7, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the byte-wise variable length encoding is Group Varint Encoding (Cho: pars 0047, 0051, 0055, 0068, group varint encoding).
Claims 10-11, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa n view of Kalkunte and further in view of US 2010/0165140 A1, Steinberg (hereinafter Steinberg).
As to claim 10, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose the method further comprising sending metadata to the device alongside the compressed data, the metadata indicating a resolution of the binary image. Steinberg, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches meta-data indicating the binary image resolution information (pars 0065, 0068, 0113, 0165-0166, claim 1). Therefore, consider Nishikawa and Steinberg’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Steinberg’s teachings in Nishikawa’s method to provide image enhancement with variable frequency resolution.
As to claim 11, Nishikawa as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the binary image is a cutout mask, the cutout mask indicating an area of a real-world entity in an image, the cutout mask for overlaying a second image to produce a composition for displaying on a display of a head-mounted device (Steinberg: Fig 4g; pars 0071, 0122, 0152, a mask indicating objects in the masked region to be placed in a display device. Note that whether the display device being head-mounted or placed in different manner is a choice of design.
As to claim 14, it recites a decoding method which is a mirror image of encoding method recited in in claims 1 and 10. Rejections of claims 1 and 10 are therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 10-11.
As to claims 17-18, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
As to claim 19, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
As to claim 20, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa n view of Kalkunte and further in view of Steinberg and US 2017/0116743 A1, Matsumoto et al. (hereinafter Matsumoto).
As to claim 16, Nishikawa as modified discloses the method of claim 15, but does not expressly teach using the cutout mask to perform at least one of: overlay a received image taken by a camera onto a received rendered image for display, overlay a received rendered image onto a received image taken by a camera for display, overlay a first image onto a second image, remove at least a portion of an image. Matsumoto, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches an image processing device that comprises an image superposition unit to provide superimposed or overlaid image with selected images which can perform one of: overlay a received image taken by a camera onto a received rendered image for display, overlay a received rendered image onto a received image taken by a camera for display, overlay a first image onto a second image, remove at least a portion of an image (Figs 3, 10-11; pars 0039-0031, 0046, 0053-0054, 0100, 0109-0110, 0115, 0125).
Therefore, consider Nishikawa as modified and Matsumoto’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Matsumoto’s teachings in Nishikawa as modified’s method to provide capability of viewing and displaying superimposed image from more than one images as a desirable display manner.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662