DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al (US 20160125851 A1), and further in view of Tasdizen (US 20200265585 A1).
RE claim 1, Jin teaches A video processing system (Fig 1, [0009]), comprising:
a graphics subsystem including a graphics processing unit (GPU) and a frame buffer (Figs 1-2, [0009], [0030], [0070]); wherein the GPU is configured to:
obtain a physical pixel layout corresponding to a display architecture of an electronic display, wherein the physical pixel layout is characterized by a non-uniform subpixel arrangement (Figs 1, 4B-D, [0009], [0018]-[0019], [0070]-[0072], [0087]- [0089]);
receive image data, including a matrix of logical pixel chroma values; subsample the matrix of logical pixel chroma values according to the physical pixel layout to produce subsampled image data having a subpixel rendered format corresponding to the non-uniform subpixel arrangement; store the subsampled image data in the frame buffer (Figs 1, 3-4, [0009], [0018]-[0019], [0070]-[0073], [0087]- [0089]); and
enable transfer of the subsampled image data to a display processing unit (DPU) of the electronic display having the non-uniform subpixel arrangement (Figs 3-4, [0082], [0098], [0114]).
Jin is silent RE: for composition of frames. However Tasdizen teaches in Figs 2-3 [0061], [0175], [0180] where the rendering controller may generate multiple layers in sub-pixel levels that are composited to generate a final display frame by the display processing unit (DPU) provides the frames (e.g. composited from the layers) to the display device for display.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Jin a system and method to transfer of the subsampled image data to a display processing unit (DPU) of the electronic display for composition of frames, as suggested by Tasdizen, in order to provide the final frames for effective display and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Jin teaches wherein the GPU is further configured to perform pixel binning on the subsampled image data having the subpixel rendered format (Figs 1, 4, [0070]-[0072], [0078], [0099]).
RE claim 3, Jin teaches wherein the GPU is configured to perform the pixel binning using rectangle tiles enlarged by N logical pixels, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and is selected to cover overlaps between physical subpixels of the physical pixel layout and logical subpixels of the received image data (Figs 1, 4-5, [0070]-[0072], [0078], [0088], [0093] etc wherein the combined pixel is an enlarged pixel covering the overlaps).
RE claim 4, Jin teaches wherein the GPU is further configured to perform texture processing on the subsampled image data having the subpixel rendered format (Fig 1, [0095]-[0096]).
RE claim 6, Jin teaches wherein the GPU is configured to render only subpixels of the subsampled image data that correspond to physical subpixels disposed on the electronic display (Fig 1, [0070], [0074]).
RE claim 7, Jin teaches wherein the GPU is configured to store in the frame buffer only subpixels of the subsampled image data that correspond to physical subpixels disposed on the electronic display (Fig 1, [0070], [0074]).
RE claim 8, Jin teaches wherein each pixel of the non-uniform subpixel arrangement includes a first subpixel having a first size and a second subpixel having a second size larger than the first size (Figs 4B-C, [0089]).
RE claim 9, Jin teaches wherein each pixel of the non-uniform subpixel arrangement includes one subpixel having a first color and two subpixels having a second color different from the first color (Figs 4B-C, [0089]).
RE claim 10, Jin teaches wherein each pixel of the non-uniform subpixel arrangement includes less than three subpixels or more than three subpixels (Figs 4B-C, [0089]).
Claims 11-14, 16-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-4, 6-10 as method and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as modified by Tasdizen, and further in view of Buckley et al (US 11551636 B1).
RE claim 5, Jin as modified by Tasdizen is silent RE wherein the GPU is further configured to perform antialiasing on the subsampled image data having the subpixel rendered format. However Buckley teaches in abstract, col 14 lines 15-27 to remove artifacts (e.g., color aliasing, color fringing) in the displayed image on display systems with non-uniform display patterns.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Jin as modified by Tasdizen a system and method wherein the GPU is further configured to perform antialiasing on the subsampled image data having the subpixel rendered format, as suggested by Buckley, to remove color aliasing artifacts in the displayed image and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 15 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attaches 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614