DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect amended claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-22 filed on 07/01/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
However, examiner found some amended limitations are taught by references previous introduced.
In Remark page 13, lines 18-19, applicant argued that Yeoh fails to disclose
that "the first rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering PxQ pixel points at a time" recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. In fact, in paragraph [0119], Yeoh discloses “refers primarily to luminance values of pixels, in other implementations, luminance values can be determined for regions comprising multiple pixels (e.g., an NxM grid of pixels) instead of for individual pixels” [0150] “a content creator may place a virtual object at a certain depth from the viewer in the render engine, due to imperfections of the generated light field, the virtual object may appear in focus at a different depth from what was intended” and [0221] “eye position is determined from cornea position and gaze direction” and [0226] “ the adjustment to the rendering location of a virtual object may be different for the left eye display and the right eye display” Yeoh teaches rendering location of the virtual object by the render engine (the location of the virtual object as a first rendering strategy condition) can be determined for region including multiple pixels e.g., an NxM grid of pixels corresponding to luminance values and involves to the position of the eyes and the gaze area/region.
Independent claims 17, 18 have substantially similarly to claim 1 and are rejected as the explanation above.
Dependent claims 2, 20 depend on independent claims 1, 17 and rejected as current rejection.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Zhang et al. (U.S. 2024/0404175 A1) in view of Yeoh et al. (U.S. 2023/0108721 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently amended), Zhang discloses an object rendering method (Zhang, [0006] “a displaying method”), comprising:
acquiring first position information of a target first object in a scene to be rendered in a screen (Zhang, [0060] “in FIG. 4, when the target object model is a building, the determined associated three-dimensional points are A1-A5 as shown, and the corresponding projection position information are A1′-A5′ (not shown) in the plane of the picture display region R” Zhang teaches acquiring first position information of a first object (target object) in a scene to be rendered in the screen (the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8, as a first object model, Fig. 4); and
rendering, in a case that the first position information indicates that an intersection of the target first object and a user gaze area satisfies a preset condition, the target first object based on a first rendering strategy (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0061] “Apparently, for the human eye position information of the user, the image of the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is seen by the user. Therefore, the image of the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is rendered according to A1′, A3′, A5′, A6′, A7′, and A8′ “ Zhang teaches rendering, in in a case that the first position information indicates that an intersection of the first object and a user gaze area satisfies a preset condition (the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is rendered according to A1′, A3′, A5′, A6′, A7′, and A’8 (not shown) as a first picture display region, Fig. 4).
Zhang discloses in Fig. 14 when the target object model is a cylinder, starting from a viewpoint of the human eye, one light ray R is emitted from the pixel center to the cylinder, and all intersection points of R with the cylinder in a scene are acquired, the calculated brightness is assigned to the pixel blocks where the projection position information intersection the target display region is located [0110].
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the first rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering PxQ pixel points at a time, and P and Q are positive integers.
and the user gaze area being determined by eye tracking.
Yeoh teaches the first rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering PxQ pixel points at a time, and P and Q are positive integers (Yeoh, [0119] “refers primarily to luminance values of pixels, in other implementations, luminance values can be determined for regions comprising multiple pixels (e.g., an NxM grid of pixels) instead of for individual pixels” and [221] “eye position is determined from cornea position and gaze direction” and [0226] “ the adjustment to the rendering location of a virtual object may be different for the left eye display and the right eye display” Yeoh teaches rendering location of the virtual object (the target object as a rendering strategy condition) can be determined for region including multiple pixels e.g., an NxM grid of pixels.
the user gaze area being determined by eye tracking (Yeoh, Fig. 28, [0235] “an eye-tracking system 2840 of the display (which may include the eye-tracking camera 500) may determine the position of the cornea of the eye and the eye’s gaze direction to determine the position of the eye” Yeoh teaches user uses an tracking system (2840, Fig. 28) to determine a gaze area corresponding to the eye’s gaze direction.
Zhang and Yeoh are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Zhang to combine with rendering strategy of rendering NxM pixels (as taught by Yeoh) in order to apply rendering strategy of rendering PxQ pixels because Yeoh can provide rendering location of the virtual object (the target object as a rendering strategy condition) can be determined for region including multiple pixels e.g., an NxM grid of pixels (Yeoh, [0119],[0221], [0226]). Doing so, it may helping to provide the user with depth cues based on the accommodation of the eye required to bring into focus different image features for the scene located on different depth plane (Yeoh, [0048]).
Regarding Claim 2 (Currently amended), a combination of Zhang and Yeoh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the rendering, in the case that the first position information indicates that the intersection of the target first object and the user gaze area satisfies the preset condition, the target first object based on the first rendering strategy comprises:
acquiring, in the case that the first position information indicates that the intersection of the target first object and the user gaze area satisfies the preset condition, first information of the target first object (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0061] “Apparently, for the human eye position information of the user, the image of the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is seen by the user. Therefore, the image of the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is rendered according to A1′, A3′, A5′, A6′, A7′, and A8′ “ Zhang teaches acquiring, in a case that the first position information indicates that an intersection of the target object and a user gaze area satisfies a preset condition (the target object, building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is rendered according to A1′, A3′, A5′, A6′, A7′, and A’8 (not shown) as a target picture display region, Fig. 4) ; and
rendering, in a case that the first information satisfies a target second condition, the target first object based on the first rendering strategy (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0061] “Apparently, for the human eye position information of the user, the image of the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is seen by the user. Therefore, the image of the building region corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is rendered according to A1′, A3′, A5′, A6′, A7′, and A8′ “ Zhang teaches rendering the first information satisfies a second condition (corresponding to A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, and A8 is rendered according to A1′, A3′, A5′, A6′, A7′, and A8′, target picture display region, Fig. 4) based on the first rendering strategy.
Regarding Claim 16, (Canceled).
Regarding Claim 17 (Currently amended), a combination of Zhang and Yeoh discloses an electronic device (Zhang, [0009] “an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor” comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to, when invoking the computer program;
acquire first position information of a target first object in a scene to be rendered in a screen; and
render, in a case that the first position information indicates that an intersection of the target first object and a user gaze area satisfies a preset first condition, the target first object based on a first rendering strategy, and the user gaze area being determined by eye tracking,
wherein the first rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering PxQ pixel points at a time, and P and Q are positive integers.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Regarding Claim 18 (Currently amended), a combination of Zhang and Yeoh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Zhang, [0010] “a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program configured to perform the displaying methods for a three-dimensional object” , having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, is cause to:
acquire first position information of a target first object in a scene to be rendered in a screen; and
render, in a case that the first position information indicates that an intersection of the target first object and a user gaze area satisfies a preset first condition, the target first object based on a first rendering strategy, and the user gaze area being determined by eye tracking,
wherein the first rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering PxQ pixel points at a time, and P and Q are positive integers.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Regarding Claim 19, (Canceled).
Regarding Claim 20 (Currently amended), a combination of Zhang and Yeoh discloses the electronic device according to claim 17, wherein the computer program causing the processor to render, in the case that the first position information indicates that the intersection of the target object and the user gaze area satisfies the preset condition, the target object based on the first rendering strategy further causes the processor to:
acquire, in the case that the first position information indicates that the intersection of the target first object and the user gaze area satisfies the preset first condition, first information of the target first object; and
render, in a case that the first information satisfies a target second condition, the target first object based on the first rendering strategy.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 2 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claims 3-15, 21-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to independent claims 1, 17, 18 the closest prior art references the examiner found are Zhang et al. (U.S. 2024/0404175 A1) in view of Yeoh et al. (U.S. 2023/0108721 A1) have been made of record as teaching: acquiring first position information of a target object in a scene to be rendered in a screen (Zhang, [0060]); rendering, in a case that the first position information indicates that an intersection of the target object and a user gaze area satisfies a preset condition, the target object based on a first rendering strategy (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0061]); the first rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering PxQ pixel points at a time, and P and Q are positive integers (Yeoh, [0119], 0226]), recited in claims 1, 17, 18.
However, the art of record did not teach or suggest the claim taken as a whole and particular the limitation pertaining:
“wherein in a case that the first information comprises a first depth value of the target first object after rendering, the target second condition comprises that the first depth value is less than or equal to a preset depth threshold;
wherein in a case that the first information comprises a first size value of the target first object, the target second condition comprises that the first size value is greater than or equal to a preset size threshold;
wherein in a case that the first information comprises gradient information of a mapping region, the target second condition comprises that the gradient information of the mapping region is greater than or equal to a preset gradient threshold, the mapping region is a region of the target object in a mapping corresponding to the scene to be rendered;
wherein in a case that the first information comprises a type of the target first object, the target second condition comprises that the type of the target first object is a preset type; and wherein in a case that the first information comprises a number of triangular faces of the target first object, the target condition comprises that the number of the triangular faces of the target first object is greater than or equal to a preset number threshold”, recited in claims 3, 21
“wherein the method further comprises prior to rendering the target first object based on the first rendering strategy:
determining that rendering strategies set for the target first object comprises a first rendering strategy and a second rendering strategy;
wherein the second rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering SxT pixel points at a time, PxQ is less than SxT, and S and T are positive integers” recited in claims 4, 22.
“wherein the rendering the target first object based on a first rendering strategy comprises:
modifying, in a case that PxQ is less than or equal to NxM, the rendering strategy of the target first object from a third rendering strategy to the first rendering strategy, and rendering the target first object based on the first rendering strategy;
wherein the third rendering strategy is a strategy of rendering NxM pixel points at a time, and N and M are positive integers” recited in claim 5.
Dependent claims 6-15 are rejected because they depend on dependent claim 5.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA VU whose telephone number is (571)272-5994. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00- 4:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/KHOA VU/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights