DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to claims 1-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 11 against the references individually that “Applicant submits that the Office has over-generalized Nelam's ASTC "block modes" (i.e., refers to decimated grid sizes like 4x4 VS. 12x12) as being identical to BC7 "modes" (i.e., 8 specific bit-allocation tradeoffs between endpoints and indices). Nelam's error modeling is specifically designed to select decimation grids, not to choose between different BC7 encoding modes. Therefore, the combination of three distinct error estimates to select a BC mode is not taught by or made obvious by neither Nelam nor Nystad because Nystad's projection error is used to find endpoints, not to choose between multiple available compression modes. Accordingly, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings disclosed on Nelam and Nystad.”. In response, the examiner contests that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here Neem in view of Nystad is relied upon to teach the limitations as a whole. Nelam teaches for at least a first block of computer graphics texture data, an endpoint quantization error estimate, and an interpolation index quantization error estimate for plural block modes (Figs 2-3, [0006], [0023], [0053]-[0055]); and based at least in part on the estimates, select a first one of the block modes; and compress the first block using the first mode that minimizes compression error (Figs 2-3, [0039], [0044], [0056] wherein the combined error is equivalent to Applicant’s compression error in abstract, [0009]-[0010]).
Nelam is silent RE: determine a projection error estimate and Block compression (BC) modes. However Nystad teaches computing projection error or variance/direction vector in abstract, [0011]-[0020], [0103] to effectively choose the color space and compute the two endpoint colors to be used in typical BCX encoding schemes. This is readily available in Nelam [0035] and [0037] “determine an initial combined error by combining the weight decimation error and a color format choice error individually for each of the decimated grids.” Wherein the mapping the texels into different groups is functionally equivalent to projecting the pixel for cluster fit causing the projection error known in the BC7/ISPC encoders, described by Nystad ([0047]) wherein ASTC and BCX are both wellknown encoders implementing block-based encoding schemes.
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 Nelam a projection error estimate as the partition or the color format choice error and Block compression (BC) modes as suggested by Nysad, to effectively select the color space and two endpoint colors to be used leading to the corresponding BC modes and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
When Nystad is combined with Nelam as set forth above, it will be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the combined error computations for each of the BC modes limiting the block modes of Nelam for the known BC modes and select the corresponding BC mode according the combined error estimates providing best combination of the color endpoint and interpolation index minimizing the compression errors, thereby reducing complexity and increasing efficiency of the system. This is identical to Applicant’s own disclosure in [0009]-[0010], [0060]-[0068] wherein the error is estimated before applying the compression.
Therefore as clearly set forth above, the applied references not only satisfies the claimed requirement, also identical to Applicant’s own disclosure. Hence rejection of the claims are maintained.
Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the 35 USC 102/103 rejections with respect to amended claims 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection to teach the amended limitations necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelam et al (US 20170301112 A1), and further in view of Nystad (US 20140193081 A1).
RE claim 1, Nelam teaches An apparatus comprising: at least one processor system (Fig 5, abstract, [0073]) configured to:
for at least a first block of computer graphics texture data, an endpoint quantization error estimate, and an interpolation index quantization error estimate for plural block modes (Figs 2-3, [0006], [0023] “estimating the weight decimation error individually for each of the vertical decimated grid and the horizontal decimated grid from the plurality of decimated grids. Further, the method includes estimating a weight decimation error for each of remaining decimated grids from the plurality of decimated grids based on corresponding weight decimation error of the vertical decimated grid and the horizontal decimated grid. Further, the method includes computing a quantization error of each weight quantization level on an ideal weight grid. Further, the method includes determining a combined error by combining the weight decimation error, the color format choice error, and the quantization error for each of the decimated grids.” wherein 'Weight Decimation' and 'Color Endpoint Estimation,' these terms are functionally identical to the claimed 'Interpolation Index' and 'Endpoint Quantization' errors. In the field of texture compression, a 'weight' is the interpolation index used for blending, and the 'estimation' of endpoints necessarily includes a calculation of the error introduced by fitting those values into a constrained bit-budget (quantization). In addition [0053]-[0055]);
based at least in part on the estimates, select a first one of the block modes that minimizes compression error (Figs 2-3, [0039], [0044], [0056] wherein the combined error is equivalent to Applicant’s compression error in abstract, [0009]-[0010]).
Nelam is silent RE: determine a projection error estimate and Block compression (BC) modes. However Nystad teaches computing projection error or variance/direction vector in abstract, [0011]-[0020], [0103] to effectively choose the color space and compute the two endpoint colors to be used in typical BCX encoding schemes. This is readily available in Nelam [0035] and [0037] “determine an initial combined error by combining the weight decimation error and a color format choice error individually for each of the decimated grids.” Wherein the mapping the texels into different groups is functionally equivalent to projecting the pixel for cluster fit causing the projection error known in the BC7/ISPC encoders, described by Nystad ([0047]) wherein ASTC and BCX are both wellknown encoders implementing block-based encoding schemes.
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 Nelam a projection error estimate as the partition or the color format choice error and Block compression (BC) modes as suggested by Nysad, to effectively select the color space and two endpoint colors to be used leading to the corresponding BC modes and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
When Nystad is combined with Nelam as set forth above, it will be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the combined error computations for each of the BC modes limiting the block modes of Nelam for the known BC modes and select the corresponding BC mode according the combined error estimates providing best combination of the color endpoint and interpolation index minimizing the compression errors, thereby reducing complexity and increasing efficiency of the system. In addition, it would further lead to solving long standing problem of the BC7 architecture and extend the applicability of the method and system and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.This is identical to Applicant’s own disclosure in [0009]-[0010], [0060]-[0068] etc wherein the error is estimated before applying the compression.
RE claim 2, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the plural BC modes comprise plural BC7 modes (Nystad [0047] wherein the error estimation before compression for each model of Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0053]-[0055], can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes).
RE claim 3, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: render the texture data on at least one video display at least in part by processing the first block compressed using the first mode (Nelam [0004], [0039]).
RE claim 4, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: select the first one of the BC modes responsive to the first one of the BC modes having a lowest total sum of the estimates among the BC modes (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0044], [0056], Nystad [0189]).
RE claim 5, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: determine a first projection error estimate for BC7 mode 6, a second projection error estimate for BC7 modes 4 and 5, a third projection error estimate for at least BC7 modes 1 and 3, and a fourth projection error estimate for BC7 modes 0 and 2 (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0023], [0053]-[0055], can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes of Nystad Figs 1-2, [0047], [0292]- [0298], [0333], [0383] etc based on the content range of color space/RGBA, quality/bitrate parameters defining the specific modes 0-7, varying the partition, index and color end points modes).
RE claim 6, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: determine individual respective endpoint quantization error estimates for respective BC7 modes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0053]-[0055], can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes of Nystad Figs 1-2, [0047], [0292]- [0298], [0333], [0383] etc based on the content range of color space/RGBA, quality/bitrate parameters defining the specific modes 0-7, varying the partition, index and color end points modes).
RE claim 7, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: determine individual respective interpolation quantization error estimates for respective BC7 modes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0053]-[0055], can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes of Nystad Figs 1-2, [0047], [0292]- [0298], [0333], [0383] etc based on the content range of color space/RGBA, quality/bitrate parameters defining the specific modes 0-7, varying the partition, index and color end points modes).
RE claim 8, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: determine the interpolation index quantization error estimate at least in part by quantizing interpolation index values from a set of scalar values in a range to N-bits (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0053]-[0055], can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes of Nystad Figs 1-4, [0047], [0292]- [0298], [0333], [0383] etc based on the content range of color space/RGBA, quality/bitrate parameters defining the specific modes 0-7, varying the partition, index and color end points modes).
RE claim 9, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: determine the interpolation index quantization error estimate at least in part by quantizing interpolation index values from a uniformly distributed set of scalar values in a range to N-bits of precision and quantizing endpoints in the values to M-bits of precision; and approximate a combined error term from the quantizing to a piecewise linear function (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0053]-[0055], calculating the combined error can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes of Nystad Figs 4-5, [0010], [0344], [0292]- [0298], [0333], [0383] etc based on the content range of color space/RGBA, quality/bitrate parameters defining the specific modes 0-7/bit precision, varying the partition, index and color end points modes).
RE claim 10, Nelam as modified by Nystad teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: determine the interpolation index quantization error estimate at least in part by quantizing interpolation index values from a distributed set of scalar values in a range to N-bits of precision and quantizing endpoints in the values to M-bits of precision; and approximate a combined error term from the quantizing to a piecewise quadratic function (Nelam Figs 2-3, [0023], [0053]-[0055], calculating the combined error can be equally applied for the projection and quantization error in all of BC7 modes of Nystad Figs 4-5, [0010], [0344], [0292]- [0298], [0333], [0383] etc based on the content range of color space/RGBA, quality/bitrate parameters defining the specific modes 0-7/bit precision, varying the partition, index and color end points modes).
Claims 11-18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 2, 4, 3, 5-8 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale. Nelam teaches A device comprising: at least one computer storage that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system (Fig 5, [0068]).
Claims 19-20 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-2 as method and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Nelam teaches rendering the texture at least in part by processing the block compressed using the selected mode ([0004], [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights