DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 13 May 2024 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 8, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hospedales (GB-2,506,172-A).
Regarding claim 1: Hospedales discloses an electronic device (fig 1 and page 7, lines 7-9 of Hospedales) comprising: at least one main processor; and a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, cause the electronic device to (page 8, lines 16-17; page 19, lines 13-21; and claims 31-33 of Hospedales – shows processor (GPU and/or CPU) which executes various instructions stored in computer memory): determine, based on at least one parameter of a tile included in a rendered image, a super-resolution algorithm for the tile (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing, are determined based on the characteristics/parameters of the rendered image tiles, such as those including faces; determination can be automatic or performed manually by the user); and process the tile based on the determined super-resolution algorithm (fig 5(3); Annex A – Fig. 3; page 11, line 24 to page 12, line 9; and page 23, lines 9-10 of Hospedales – super-resolution processing of image tiles containing faces, and displaying to the user).
Regarding claim 8: Hospedales discloses an electronic device (fig 1 and page 7, lines 7-9 of Hospedales) comprising: at least one main processor; and a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, cause the electronic device to (page 8, lines 16-17; page 19, lines 13-21; and claims 31-33 of Hospedales – shows processor (GPU and/or CPU) which executes various instructions stored in computer memory): determine, based on at least one parameter of a rendered image, a super-resolution algorithm for the rendered image (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing, are determined based on the characteristics/ parameters of the rendered image tiles, such as those including faces; determination can be automatic or performed manually by the user); and process the rendered image based on the determined super-resolution algorithm (fig 5(3); Annex A – Fig. 3; page 11, line 24 to page 12, line 9; and page 23, lines 9-10 of Hospedales – super-resolution processing of rendered image tiles containing faces, and displaying to the user).
Regarding claim 13: Hospedales discloses an image processing method comprising: determining, based on at least one parameter of a tile included in a rendered image, a super-resolution algorithm for the tile (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing, are determined based on the characteristics/parameters of the rendered image tiles, such as those including faces; determination can be automatic or performed manually by the user); and processing the tile based on the determined super-resolution algorithm (fig 5(3); Annex A – Fig. 3; page 11, line 24 to page 12, line 9; and page 23, lines 9-10 of Hospedales – super-resolution processing of image tiles containing faces, and displaying to the user).
Regarding claim 20: Hospedales discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one main processor, cause the at least one main processor (fig 1; page 8, lines 16-17; page 19, lines 13-21; and claims 31-33 of Hospedales – shows processor (GPU and/or CPU) which executes various instructions stored in computer memory) to perform the method of claim 13 (as rejected above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
8. Claims 2-4, 7, 9, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hospedales (GB-2,506,172-A) in view of Liu (US-2024/0095880).
Regarding claim 2: Hospedales discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (as rejected above). Hospedales does not disclose wherein the at least one parameter of the tile comprises at least one of a motion vector of the tile, a depth of the tile, and a number of primitives included in the tile.
Liu discloses wherein the at least one parameter of the tile ([0238], [0280], and [0405] of Liu – applies tiling operations for tile-based rendering; maps addresses corresponding to tiles) comprises at least one of a motion vector of the tile (fig 52 (5204), [0555], and [0560]-[0561] of Liu – applies motion vectors to processing input frame and the associated entities/tiles), a depth of the tile ([0093]-[0094], and [0416] of Liu), and a number of primitives included in the tile ([0267], and [0405] of Liu – parameters include parameters related to primitives, including number of, indices, etc.).
Hospedales and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely super-resolution image data processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one parameter of the tile comprise at least one of a motion vector of the tile, a depth of the tile, and a number of primitives included in the tile, as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient up-scaling and processing of image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hospedales according to the relied-upon teachings of Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the super-resolution algorithm is determined among one of a first super-resolution algorithm or a second super-resolution algorithm, based on the at least one parameter of the tile (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing, are determined based on the characteristics/ parameters of the rendered image tiles, such as those including faces; determination can be automatic or performed manually by the user).
Regarding claim 4: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the electronic device of claim 3 (as rejected above), wherein a power usage of the first super-resolution algorithm is less than a power usage of the second super-resolution algorithm (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing; it is implicit that different algorithms will have different efficiencies, and thus use different levels of power).
Regarding claim 7: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the electronic device of claim 2 (as rejected above), wherein the motion vector of the tile ([0560]-[0561] of Liu) is determined based on motion vectors of primitives included in the tile ([0267] and [0345] of Liu – processing functions for rendering can be applied with respect to primitives), and wherein the depth of the tile ([0093]-[0094], and [0416] of Liu) is determined based on depths of the primitives included in the tile ([0267] and [0345] of Liu – processing functions for rendering can be applied with respect to primitives). Hospedales and Liu are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 9: Hospedales discloses the electronic device of claim 8 (as rejected above). Hospedales does not disclose wherein the at least one parameter of the rendered image comprises at least one of a motion vector of the rendered image, a depth of the rendered image, and a number of primitives included in the rendered image.
Liu discloses wherein the at least one parameter of the rendered image ([0238], [0280], and [0405] of Liu – applies tiling operations for tile-based rendering; maps addresses corresponding to tiles) comprises at least one of a motion vector of the rendered image (fig 52 (5204), [0555], and [0560]-[0561] of Liu – applies motion vectors to processing input frame and the associated entities/tiles), a depth of the rendered image ([0093]-[0094], and [0416] of Liu), and a number of primitives included in the rendered image ([0267], and [0405] of Liu – parameters include parameters related to primitives, including number of, indices, etc.).
Hospedales and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely super-resolution image data processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one parameter of the rendered image comprise at least one of a motion vector of the rendered image, a depth of the rendered image, and a number of primitives included in the rendered image, as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient up-scaling and processing of image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hospedales according to the relied-upon teachings of Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 14: Hospedales discloses the method of claim 13 (as rejected above). Hospedales does not disclose wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of a motion vector of the tile, a depth of the tile, and a number of primitives included in the tile.
Liu discloses wherein the at least one parameter ([0238], [0280], and [0405] of Liu – applies tiling operations for tile-based rendering; maps addresses corresponding to tiles) comprises at least one of a motion vector of the tile (fig 52 (5204), [0555], and [0560]-[0561] of Liu – applies motion vectors to processing input frame and the associated entities/tiles), a depth of the tile ([0093]-[0094], and [0416] of Liu), and a number of primitives included in the tile ([0267], and [0405] of Liu – parameters include parameters related to primitives, including number of, indices, etc.).
Hospedales and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely super-resolution image data processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one parameter of the tile comprise at least one of a motion vector of the tile, a depth of the tile, and a number of primitives included in the tile, as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient up-scaling and processing of image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hospedales according to the relied-upon teachings of Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 14 (as rejected above), wherein the determining of the super-resolution algorithm comprises: selecting one of a first super-resolution algorithm or a second super-resolution algorithm based on the at least one parameter of the tile (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing, are determined based on the characteristics/parameters of the rendered image tiles, such as those including faces; determination can be automatic or performed manually by the user).
Regarding claim 16: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 15 (as rejected above), wherein a power usage of the first super-resolution algorithm is less than a power usage of the second super-resolution algorithm (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing; it is implicit that different algorithms will have different efficiencies, and thus use different levels of power).
Regarding claim 19: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 14 (as rejected above), wherein the motion vector of the tile ([0560]-[0561] of Liu) is determined based on motion vectors of primitives included in the tile ([0267] and [0345] of Liu – processing functions for rendering can be applied with respect to primitives), and wherein the depth of the tile ([0093]-[0094], and [0416] of Liu) is determined based on depths of the primitives included in the tile ([0267] and [0345] of Liu – processing functions for rendering can be applied with respect to primitives). Hospedales and Liu are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14.
9. Claims 5, 10, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hospedales (GB-2,506,172-A) in view of Liu (US-2024/0095880), and in further view of Rajasankar (US-2024/0265494).
Regarding claim 5: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the electronic device of claim 3 (as rejected above). Hospedales in view of Liu does not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, further cause the electronic device to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the tile and the depth of the tile; and selecting the first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting the second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value.
Rajasankar discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, further cause the electronic device to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the tile and the depth of the tile; and selecting the first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting the second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value ([0035]-[0039] of Rajasankar – motion vector quality threshold used to determine the algorithm applied for super resolution image processing).
Hospedales and Rajasankar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely super-resolution image data processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the rendered image and the depth of the rendered image; and selecting a first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting a second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value, as taught by Rajasankar. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient up-scaling and processing of image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hospedales further according to the relied-upon teachings of Rajasankar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 10: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the electronic device of claim 9 (as rejected above). Hospedales in view of Liu does not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, further cause the electronic device to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the rendered image and the depth of the rendered image; and selecting a first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting a second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value.
Rajasankar discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, further cause the electronic device to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the rendered image and the depth of the rendered image; and selecting a first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting a second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value ([0035]-[0039] of Rajasankar – motion vector quality threshold used to determine the algorithm applied for super resolution image processing).
Hospedales and Rajasankar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely super-resolution image data processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the rendered image and the depth of the rendered image; and selecting a first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting a second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value, as taught by Rajasankar. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient up-scaling and processing of image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hospedales further according to the relied-upon teachings of Rajasankar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Hospedales in view of Liu, and in further view of Rajasankar, discloses the electronic device of claim 10 (as rejected above), wherein a power usage of the first super-resolution algorithm is less than a power usage of the second super-resolution algorithm (fig 2; fig 4(1-3); page 8, line 22 to page 11, line 30 of Hospedales – different modes of super-resolution processing (Inline Window Mode, Dynamic Interactive Mode, Gallery Mode), as well as different zoom levels for super-resolution processing; it is implicit that different algorithms will have different efficiencies, and thus use different levels of power).
Regarding claim 17: Hospedales in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 15 (as rejected above). Hospedales in view of Liu does not disclose wherein the selecting of the first super-resolution algorithm or the second super-resolution algorithm comprises: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the tile and the depth of the tile; and selecting the first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting the second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value.
Rajasankar discloses wherein the selecting of the first super-resolution algorithm or the second super-resolution algorithm comprises: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the tile and the depth of the tile; and selecting the first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting the second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value ([0035]-[0039] of Rajasankar – motion vector quality threshold used to determine the algorithm applied for super resolution image processing).
Hospedales and Rajasankar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely super-resolution image data processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the super-resolution algorithm by: obtaining a value based on at least one of the motion vector of the rendered image and the depth of the rendered image; and selecting a first super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value not satisfying a first threshold value; or selecting a second super-resolution algorithm based on the obtained value satisfying the first threshold value, as taught by Rajasankar. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient up-scaling and processing of image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hospedales further according to the relied-upon teachings of Rajasankar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6, 12 and 18 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.
Claim 6 recites: “The electronic device of claim 5, wherein the electronic device further comprises a first auxiliary processor and a second auxiliary processor, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one main processor, further cause the electronic device to perform the second super-resolution algorithm using both the first auxiliary processor and the second auxiliary processor based on at least one of the number of primitives included in the tile, the motion vector of the tile, and the depth of the tile satisfying a second threshold value.”
Examiner has not discovered this particularly recited claim as a whole, which includes by dependency the subject matter of claims 1-3 and 5. The closest prior art includes: Hospedales (GB-2,506,172-A), Liu (US-2024/0095880), Rajasankar (US-2024/0265494), Motilla (US-2023/0325977), Imber (US-2024/0135507), Zhang (US-2024/0221113), Imber (GB-2617220-A), Fatahalian (K. Fatahalian, "The Rise of Mobile Visual Computing Systems," in IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 8-13, Apr.-June 2016, doi: 10.1109/MPRV.2016.35), and Lopez (“A Novel Real-Time DSP-Based Video Super-Resolution System”, by Sebastian Lopez et al., IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 55, No. 4, Nov. 2009, pp. 2264-70).
However, none of the prior art references cited above, nor any other prior art references discovered by Examiner, fully teach claim 6 including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, either in a single reference or in an obvious combination of references. Therefore, claim 6 distinguishes over the prior art.
Claims 12 and 18 are each similarly limited, and therefore distinguish over the prior art for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615