DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are pending in this application. Claims 2 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, and 13-15 are amended. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, see section “claim amendments,” filed June 18, 2026, overcomes the objection to claim 15.
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests that Vidanagamachchi and Krishana fail to teach “generating a first portion of the frame.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0011 of Vidanagamachichi teaches that a portion of the image frame is generated as part of the initial frame. Thus it is clear that Vidanagamachichi teaches generating a first portion of the frame.
Applicant suggests that the Vidanagamachchi and Krishnan fail to teach “down sampling a second portion of the frame … based on information corresponding to a first region of interest (ROI).” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0021 of Krishnan teaches a proposed solution that “reduces the resolution of the input image without loss of detail in the ROI” and that the proposed solution “allows for controlling the picture quality difference between the ROI and the background” therefore it is clear that Krishnan teaches down sampling a second portion of the frame based on information corresponding to the ROI.
Additionally Applicant states that Vidanagamachchi and Krishnan fail to teach "the first portion represents a first field of view (FOV) and the second portion represents a second FOV that is larger than the first FOV." Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 3A of Krishnan teaches that the first portion (length and height denoted by x and y) is within a second portion that makes up the remainder of the frame (length and height denoted by w and h). Therefore it is clear that Krishnan teaches that the second portion is larger than the first portion.
Applicant explains that Vidanagamachchi and Krishnan fail to teach that the second portion "includ[es] the information corresponding to the first ROI that is downsampled to the second resolution." Examiner respectfully disagrees since as seen in figure 3A of Krishnan, the first ROI is included within the image frame of the second portion, and paragraph 0021 of Krishnan where “the proposed solution reduces the resolution of the input image without loss of detail in the ROI” as well as paragraph 0028 of Krishnan where “is downsampling in the ROI is unavoidable, the downsampling ratios should be chosen as follows in order for the ROI to have better quality than the background”. Thus it is clear that Krishnan teaches that the second portion of the frame includes the first ROI, and is downsampled to the second resolution.
Applicant states that Vidanagamachchi and Krishnan fail to teach
"compressing the first portion of the frame based on modifying each pixel of a group of pixels in the first portion using a value corresponding to a respective pixel in the downsampled second portion to generate a respective residual value for each pixel in the group of pixels in the first portion," as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Krishnan paragraph 0049 teaches that “image compression generally includes … an intra search for a best intra prediction match” and “a subtraction S of the original input pixels from the section being encoded with best match predicted pixels to calculate lossless residual pixels. Thus it is clear that Krishnan and Vidanagamachchi teaches that compression occurs by modifying the pixel based on another pixel in the frame to generate a residual value.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240107086 (hereinafter "Vidanagamachchi", cited in the IDS) in view of US 20190379893 (hereinafter "Krishnan", cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Vidanagamachchi teaches method of generating one or more frames, comprising: capturing, using an image sensor, sensor data for a frame associated with a scene [See paragraph 0011 and FIG 6 item 600 which showcases the content delivery system, which captures the initial frame from image steams coming from the camera (640) and sensors (660)];
PNG
media_image1.png
317
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
748
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
generating a first portion of the frame from the sensor data based on information corresponding to a first region of interest (ROI), the first portion having a first resolution [See paragraph 0011 above where a portion of the frame (subframe) is taken as a first ROI (subframe corresponding to fovea)]; downsampling a second portion of the frame from the sensor data to generate a downsampled second portion having a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution [See Fig 3, item 320 where the original image frame is downscaled to a second quality, and Fig 3 item 380 where the downscaled section is a portion of the frame. See also 0033 where the foveated region (portion corresponding to the ROI) is at a higher quality compared to the rest of the image (portion corresponding to second portion)].
PNG
media_image3.png
607
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
261
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and outputting the [see paragraph 0011, and Fig 3 item 380 above where the first portion and the second portion is output.
Vidanagamachchi does not explicitly teach that the first portion represents a first field of view (FOV) and the second portion represents a second FOV that is larger than the first. Vidanagamachchi also does not explicitly teach that the first portion of the frame is compressed, or that the method used to compress the first portion of the frame involves modifying pixels to generate residual pixels.
Krishnan does teach that the second portion associated with the second FOV is larger than the first portion associated with the first FOV [See Krishnan Fig. 3A where the second FOV makes up the background of the frame, while the first FOV makes up the main ROI, therefore this section is smaller]
the second portion including the information corresponding to the first ROI that is downsampled to the second resolution [see Krishnan 3A above where the first ROI is enclosed by the second portion. See also that the width and height of the second portion decrease after step 312 where the second portion is downsampled to a second resolution, however it still remains larger than the first ROI which is included inside];
PNG
media_image5.png
734
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Krishnan also teaches that the second portion of the frame resolution is lower than the first resolution [see 0028 of Krishnan where the background portion has lower quality than the ROI portion].
PNG
media_image6.png
66
779
media_image6.png
Greyscale
And that the first portion of the frame corresponding to the ROI is compressed [See 0021 where ROI coding can be performed using mainstream compression standards].
PNG
media_image7.png
293
789
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Krishnan additionally teaches compressing the first portion of the frame based on modifying each pixel of a group of pixels in the first portion using a value corresponding to a respective pixel in the downsampled second portion to generate a respective residual value for each pixel in the group of pixels in the first portion [See Krishnan 0049 where the image compression generates residual values by using subtracting pixels from another region of the same frame using an intra search for a best intra prediction match. Intra prediction matching used for compression of an image containing an ROI is a commonly used method that searches neighboring pixels (second portion) to create residual pixels in the ROI (first portion)];
PNG
media_image8.png
124
1085
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and outputting the compressed first portion of the frame and the second portion of the frame [see 0021 above and Fig. 3A of Krishnan above where a compressed image is output with the ROI (first portion is compressed using mainstream compression standards), and the second portion has been downsampled].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of generating a reduced resolution image frame including a region of interest of Vidanagamachichi and the process of compressing the ROI where the ROI is a portion of the larger downsampled frame of Krishnan as they are in the same field of endeavor of compressing an image frame based on the ROI. The motivation to combine would be for faster encoding while still maintaining the quality of the portion of the frame having the ROI [As mentioned in 0021 above].
Regarding claim 3, Krishnan teaches compressing the first portion further comprises: encoding the residual values using a compression algorithm [see 0069 of Krishnan which teaches that the encoder acts on the residual pixels as part of the image compression algorithm].
PNG
media_image9.png
207
1092
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Krishnan teaches decompressing the compressed first portion of the frame based on the information corresponding to the first ROI in the second portion of the frame [See 0069 of Krishnan above where intra coding can be used, indicating at the encoding/ decoding happens using pixels within the same frame. See also 0114 of Krishnan where the decoder uses the ROI parameters when decompressing the image frame].
PNG
media_image10.png
518
906
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Krishnan discloses decompressing the compressed first portion of the frame involves adding, to each value in the group of residual values, a value of a pixel in the second portion of the frame to generate a reconstructed pixel value for each residual value in the group of residual value. [See Fig 6 box 606 and 0069 of Krishnan above which specifically discloses adding residual pixels to generate a reconstructed pixel value].
PNG
media_image11.png
650
459
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Vidanagamachchi discloses that the image sensor outputs the first portion of the frame and the second portion of the frame to an image signal processor, and Krishnan recites that the first portion of the frame is compressed [See Fig 2, of Vidanagamachichi 200, where the frame and subframes entered the playback system to be processed. The playback system acts as an image signal processer. See also Krishnan 0021 which states that the first portion of the frame is compressed].
PNG
media_image12.png
476
743
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Vidanagamachchi discloses an image signal processor that outputs the first portion of the frame and the second portion of the frame to a frame buffer. [As discussed in paragraph 0026 and 0073, the frames can be processed in accordance to a HEVC standard to create a video bitstream, therefore requiring frames to be stored in RAM before being output, which is essentially a frame buffer]. Krishnan teaches that the first portion of the frame is compressed [See rejections above and Krishnan 0021]
PNG
media_image13.png
539
391
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Krishnan discloses decompressing the compressed first portion of the frame based on the second portion of the frame [See paragraph 0034 where the ROI portion is decoded , and 0069 above which states that pixel reconstruction happens using pixels within the frame];
PNG
media_image14.png
194
876
media_image14.png
Greyscale
and Vidanagamachchi teaches synthesizing the first portion of the frame and the second portion of the frame into a single frame [see 0046 where the playback system generates a combined image frame based on the portion of the frame containing the ROI and the second portion of the frame].
PNG
media_image15.png
458
537
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Krishnan discloses that an image signal processor decompresses the compressed first portion of the frame and processes the first portion of the frame based on the second portion of the frame at a front end of the image signal processor [See paragraph 0109 where the decompressing is happening at the local processer. The local processer is equivalent to a frontend, or client-side processer].
PNG
media_image16.png
678
449
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Krishnan discloses that an image signal processor decompresses the
compressed first portion of the frame and processes the first portion of the frame based on the second portion of the frame at an offline engine of the image signal processor [See paragraph 0109 (above) where the decompressing is happening at the local processer. The local processer is equivalent to an offline engine as the processing does not require network connection].
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed to claim 4.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed to claim 5.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed to claim 6.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed to claim 7.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed to claim 8.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed to claim 9.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed to claim 10.
Regarding claim 22, Krishnan teaches that the first portion corresponds to a foveal region of the frame and the second portion corresponds to a peripheral region of the frames [See 0021 above of Krishnan where the First portion is the ROI, and the second portions is the background, see also that Krishnan 0106 teaches a gaze tracking device, indicating that the ROI is the fovea and the background is the periphery].
PNG
media_image17.png
126
907
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Krishnan teaches that the information corresponding to the first ROI in the downsampled second portion includes overlapping pixels used for compressing the first portion [See 3A of Krishnan above where the ROI portion of the frame is overlapped on top of the second portion of the frame. See also 0005 of Krishnan that states that it is known that a final image can be generated by blending the ROI over the background, indicating that there are overlapping pixels present in some forms of compression]. Vidanagamachchi also teaches that a portion of the frame including the ROI (higher quality subframe) is blended with the rest of the image frame (second portion of the frame) using alpha techniques which indicates overlapping pixels when rendering [Vidanagamachchi 0046].
PNG
media_image18.png
121
894
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
365
681
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights