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
Arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 12-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukasawa (US 2019.0189081) in view of Quilez (Quilez Inigo: “inverse Bilinear Interpolation – 2010”, WayBack Machine, 1 June 2022, XP093323770, 3 Pages, page 1, figure 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20220601170333/htps/iquiezles.org/articles/ibilinear/).
Regarding claim 1, Fukasawa disclose:
An apparatus for graphics processing, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the processor is configured to perform color point adjustment interpolation (Fig. 1, 8; [0173-0174]; apparatus SY1; memory 112-114; processor 1).
Fukasawa is not explicit as to, but Quilez disclose:
select a plurality of known points about an interpolation point, wherein each known point of the plurality of known points is associated with a known location and a known color value; select a reference known point from the set of known points (pg. 1-2; plurality of known points A, B, C, D; which have data stored at each coordinate (e.g., color data stored at each vertices A, B, C, D) and are about interpolation point X; using the equation to determine X(u,v) coordinate uses as a reference known point A, from the set of A, B, C, D);
determine a relative color value for each of the set of known points other than the selected reference known point based on a color difference between a corresponding known point and the selected reference known point (see pg. 1-2; each color is stored at each vertices B, C, D such that the relative color value can be determine based on the difference between A and the other coordinates (e.g., (B-A), (D-A), (A-B+C+D));
determine an interpolation color for the interpolation point based on the determined relative color value for each of the set of known points other than the selected reference known point, the interpolation point, and a first known color value of the selected reference known point; and output an indicator of the determined interpolation color for the interpolation point (see pg. 1-2; with know coordinates of A, B, C, and D and respective determined relative colors, the interpolation color at X(u,v) can be extracted and ultimately output by the apparatus SY1 of Fukasawa).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known techniques of Quilez to that of Fukasawa to predictably allow point X within a random quadrilateral (of known points) to be determine and the data stored (e.g., color) at each interpolated point to further be extracted (pg. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Quilez further disclose:
to select the set of known points, the processor is configured to: select at most four known points about the interpolation point (see pg. 1; known points A, B, C, D).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. While Fukasawa is not explicit as to “determine a first relative color value for a first known point of the plurality of known points as a first color difference between a second known color value of the first known point and the first known color value of the selected reference known point; determine a second relative color value for a second known point of the plurality of known points as a second color difference between a third known color value of the second known point and the first known color value of the selected reference known point; and determine a third relative color value for a third known point of the plurality of known points as a third color difference between a fourth known color value of the third known point and a sum of the second known color value of the first known point and the second relative color value”, Fukasawa at Fig. pg. 1-2 disclose there are four points A, B, C, D to determine the interpolation range between each other, such that the summation of known color values can readily be calculated.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention would find it obvious to “determine a first relative color value for a first known point of the set of known points as a first color difference between a second known color value of the first known point and the first known color value of the selected reference known point; determine a second relative color value for a second known point of the set of known points as a second color difference between a third known color value of the second known point and the first known color value of the selected reference known point; and determine a third relative color value for a third known point of the set of known points as a third color difference between a fourth known color value of the third known point and a sum of the second known color value of the first known point and the second relative color value”, to predictably interpolate the color at desired color point coordinate based on the disclosure of Quilez, particularly pg. 1-2.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Quilez a further disclose:
to determine the relative color value for each known point of the plurality of known points other than the selected reference known point based on the color difference between the corresponding known point and the selected reference known point, the processor is further configured to: determine the relative color value for each known point of the plurality of known points other than the selected reference known point using four adders (see pg. 1-2; each color is stored at each vertices B, C, D such that the relative color value can be determine based on the difference between A and the other coordinates (e.g., (B-A), (D-A), (A-B+C+D))).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fukasawa further disclose:
the apparatus comprises a wireless communication device (see [0092]).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 18-20, claims 13-14 and 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, 3, 8, 1, and 3, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9-11, and 15-17 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621