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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 30, the instant claim recites the limitation of "computer-readable medium". The claims are directed toward an article of manufacture and normally would be statutory. However, the specification, at paragraph [0022], defines or exemplifies computer-readable medium in an open-ended and non-limiting manner such as to include " any other medium that may be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions or data structures that may be accessed by a computer.”
Thus under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "computer-readable medium", the claim is directed toward non-statutory type computer-readable storage media such as transitory signals and propagating waves. Applicant is advised to amend the respective claims to exclude such transitory embodiments by adding “non-transitory” which would render the claim statutory.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 18,19, 27, 28, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200265585 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Tasdizen teaches: an apparatus for graphics processing (para. 148, graphics processing system), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (para. 148) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory (para. 155) , the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain a first frame and a second frame of a plurality of frames in a scene, wherein the second frame is subsequent to the first frame in the plurality of frames (Fig. 4: first frame and second frame can be Fn-1 and Fn. See also paras. 51-57, two frames, one subsequent to another);
calculate a set of first motion vectors in the first frame and a set of second motion vectors in the second frame (claim 1, para. 39, determining motion vectors from regions of the first and second frames), wherein the set of first motion vectors and the set of second motion vectors are calculated based on a block matching procedure for a set of first blocks in the first frame and a set of second blocks in the second frame (Id. and e.g. paras. 66-75, here “region(-s)” correspond to Applicant’s claimed blocks. Another teaching: see Fig. 6: 44 blocks, that the frame is divided into),
wherein each of the set of first blocks includes a plurality of first pixels and each of the set of second blocks includes a plurality of second pixels (i.e. paras. 193, 205, and Fig. 4, the regions/blocks are pixels),
wherein the block matching procedure is associated with comparing at least one first block of the set of first blocks to at least one second block of the set of second blocks (e.g. Fig. 4: the blocks or regions 46, 45, 44 for block matching); and
estimate at least one third frame in the plurality of frames based on the set of first motion vectors in the first frame and the set of second motion vectors in the second frame, wherein the at least one third frame is subsequent to the second frame in the plurality of frames (e.g. para. 52 and Fig. 4: Fn+0.5, the reference’s “extrapolated frame” corresponds to Applicant’s claimed estimated frame based on motion vectors, and that is subsequent to the first and second frames).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference, in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Tasdizen teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform the block matching procedure for the set of first blocks in the first frame and the set of second blocks in the second frame, wherein the set of first motion vectors and the set of second motion vectors are calculated based on the block matching procedure (Figs. 4, 6, claim 2, 7, paras. 66-84. Note, a lot of claim 3 is recited in claim 1, particularly the wherein clause of claim 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to help reduce latency via frame extrapolation of previously rendered frames.
Regarding claim 4:
Tasdizen teaches: the apparatus of claim 3, wherein to perform the block matching procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: compare the at least one first block of the set of first blocks to the at least one second block of the set of second blocks (e.g. claim 1, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to help reduce latency via frame extrapolation of previously rendered frames.
Regarding claim 14:
Tasdizen teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit the at least one third frame after estimating the at least one third frame, wherein the at least one third frame is transmitted to a display or a display panel (e.g. para. 52 (extrapolated subsequent frame or “third frame”) can be displayed on a display (e.g. paras. 64, 154, 160, 161)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to use known image processing to produces desired display results.
Regarding claim 15:
Tasdizen teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one of an antenna or a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (para. 160, portable or mobile devices that Tasdizen can be implemented in have transceivers coupled to processors),
wherein the scene is associated with the graphics processing, computer vision processing, or artificial intelligence (AI) processing (para. 160, AR and VR is computer vision and/or graphics processing. See also title of Tasdizen), and
wherein the block matching procedure is a block searching procedure for the graphics processing, the computer vision processing, or the AI processing (see Id.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16: see also claim 1.
The method of claim 16 is performed by the apparatus of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19: see claim 4.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 27: see claim 14.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 28: see claim 15.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 29: see claim 1.
The apparatus of claim 29 corresponds to that of claim 1, with added “means” for performing the same functions.
Regarding claim 30: see claim 1.
Tasdizen teaches: a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code for graphics processing (claim 19), the code when executed by a processor causes the processor to:
The code corresponds to the functions performed by the apparatus of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 10, 17, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of Barenbrug (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0142289 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the block matching procedure is associated with a comparison of first depth coordinate for at least one first pixel of a set of first pixels in the at least one first block to a second depth coordinate for at least one corresponding second pixel of a set of second pixels in the at least one second block, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Barenbrug teaches that using depth information (i.e. depth coordinates for at least one pixel) ss known for performing motion estimation using motion vectors across different frames (see e.g. claim 1, and paras. 3-6, 28). Modifying the applied references, such to include depth information of Barenbrug, which includes pixel depth coordinate information, to realize benefits of incorporating depth information, such to improve motion estimation quality (Barenbrug, para. 3), is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 2, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
Barenbrug teaches: the apparatus of claim 4, wherein to compare the at least one first block of the set of first blocks to the at least one second block of the set of second blocks, the at least one processor is configured to: compare a first depth coordinate for at least one first pixel of a set of first pixels in the at least one first block to a second depth coordinate for at least one corresponding second pixel of a set of second pixels in the at least one second block (Barenbrug teaches comparing depth coordinates between pixels of different frames in its motion estimation (see claim 10). This teaches Applicant’s claim 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to improve motion estimation between frames.
Regarding claim 10:
Tasdizen teaches: the apparatus of claim 4, wherein to compare the at least one first block of the set of first blocks to the at least one second block of the set of second blocks, the at least one processor is configured to: identify a selected first block in the set of first blocks that is most similar to a selected second block in the set of second blocks (see mapping to claim 1 and e.g. Fig. 4. Tasdizen teaches comparing similar regions or blocks between frames (i.e. first and second block). Also, for claim interpretation purposes, Applicant’s specification has no further description on what “most similar” is, other than the exact words “most similar”.)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to improve motion estimation between frames.
Regarding claim 17: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20: see claim 5.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 25: see claim 10.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of Barenbrug and further in view of Lu, Q., Fang, X., Xu, C., & Wang, Y. (2012, July). Frame rate up-conversion for depth-based 3D video. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (pp. 598-603). IEEE (“Lu”).
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 5, wherein to compare the first depth coordinate for the at least one first pixel of the set of first pixels to the second depth coordinate for the at least one corresponding second pixel of the set of second pixels, the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether a difference in the first depth coordinate for each pixel of the set of first pixels and the second depth coordinate for the at least one corresponding second pixel of the set of second pixels is greater than a depth threshold, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Tasdizen teaches that it is known to use similarity measures when comparing data elements between two frames (i.e. the two frames used to extrapolate the subsequent frame, per Tasdizen). See para. 98-101. That is, for example, per para. 101, “The similarity measure may be determined (e.g. the error value (e.g. sum of absolute differences (SAD)) may be calculated) using any suitable and desired data values associated with the data elements of the regions of the first and second frames being compared. In one embodiment the comparison is performed (e.g. the error value is calculated) using image data associated with (e.g. each of) the data elements (e.g. pixels) of the regions of the first and second frames being compared.” Furthermore, Lu teaches that depth thresholds are known to compare depth values of pixels, as a similarity measure for the data of value of depth. See Lu, page 600 and Sections II and III(A). Modifying the applied references, such to apply the teachings of Tasdizen, specifically to depth values, per both Barenbrug and Lu, and using a similarity measure of depth threshold, per Lu, is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 6, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 5, wherein if a difference in the first depth coordinate for the at least one first pixel and the second depth coordinate for the at least one corresponding second pixel is greater than a depth threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
refrain from comparing the at least one first block to the at least one second block; and
compare the at least one first block of the set of first blocks to at least one third block of a set of third blocks, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Barenbrug also teaches depth thresholds (para. 27), and also relevant to motion estimation. In the event the value or “depth_jump” is bigger than a threshold, this could be an indication that the pixel is now in an occlusion area. A “third set of blocks” can then be compared with the first to see if the occlusion still exists (third set is being interpreted to be from a third frame). A difference above a threshold can also be indication of a change of object (Tasdizen, par. 122), which could also motivate one of ordinary skill to analyze a third or additional frame blocks.
Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21: see claim 6.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 23: see claim 8.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of Massal (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177649 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 5, wherein to compare the first depth coordinate for the at least one first pixel of the set of first pixels to the second depth coordinate for the at least one corresponding second pixel of the set of second pixels, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a Z-test for the set of first pixels and the set of second pixels, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Performing z-tests is known (Massal, para. 320). This can be done, per Massal, for culling, and/or to determine objects in scenes or occlusion (e.g. Tasdizen, paras. 222-223). Modifying the applied references, per Massal, to have included z-testing pixels, i.e. for culling, occlusion and/or region object identification, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of Barenbrug and further in view of Lu and Huang (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0087207).
Regarding claim 9:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the depth threshold (see mapping to claim 8 for depth threshold, or alternatively, Huang, para. 35) is based on a clustering analysis on at least one frame associated with a depth buffer (Huang, para. 35), or
wherein the depth threshold is based on a run-time frame depth buffer analysis associated with the depth buffer, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 9, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped/described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Tasdizen teaches that it is known to use similarity measures when comparing data elements between two frames (i.e. the two frames used to extrapolate the subsequent frame, per Tasdizen). See paras. 98-101.
Regarding claim 24: see claim 9.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of either one of Massal or Huang.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of first motion vectors is calculated based on at least one of a first color buffer or a first depth buffer associated with the first frame (Massal, para. 58) or (Huang, para. 21, 22, 35), and
wherein the set of second motion vectors is calculated based on at least one of a second color buffer or a second depth buffer associated with the second frame (Massal, para. 58) (Huang, para. 21, 22, 35) (motion vectors mapped in claim 1),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 11, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped/described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 12:
Huang teaches: the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first depth buffer is a first Z-buffer and the second depth buffer is a second Z-buffer (para. 21, depth buffer, also known as a z-buffer), wherein the first Z-buffer and the second Z-buffer are in at least one of: a graphics processing unit (GPU) hardware cache, a double data rate (DDR) memory, or a system memory (para. 51, depth buffer/ z-buffer can be in memory, such as para. 90, system memory).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to take advantage of known memory structures.
Claim(s) 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasdizen in view of Massal and Huang.
Regarding claim 13:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first Z-buffer (mapped in claim 12) is a first full resolution buffer or a first low resolution buffer (Massal, para. 53, 63, low resolution buffer is known), and wherein the second Z-buffer is a second full resolution buffer or a second low resolution buffer (Massal, para. 53, 63, low resolution buffer is known),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 13, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped/described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26: see claim 13 and its dependencies.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies. See below.
the method of claim 16, wherein the set of first motion vectors is calculated based on at least one of a first color buffer or a first depth buffer associated with the first frame, and wherein the set of second motion vectors is calculated based on at least one of a second color buffer or a second depth buffer associated with the second frame (claim 11),
wherein the first depth buffer is a first Z-buffer and the second depth buffer is a second Z-buffer, wherein the first Z-buffer and the second Z-buffer are in at least one of: a graphics processing unit (GPU) hardware cache, a double data rate (DDR) memory, or a system memory (claim 12),
wherein the first Z-buffer is a first full resolution buffer or a first low resolution buffer, and wherein the second Z-buffer is a second full resolution buffer or a second low resolution buffer (claim 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20080043843-A1: An interframe prediction processor designed for high-speed video coding and decoding.
US-20070140347-A1: a method of forming an image by using block matching algorithm and motion compensating interpolation
US-20090161763-A1: A method and apparatus for estimating motion of a pixel block in a first frame, the method including searching a first area in a second frame to identify a first matching block that corresponds to the pixel block, the first matching block including a first error value that is a minimum of at least one error criteria between the pixel block and the first matching block, calculating a first motion vector associated with the first matching block.
US-20100283892-A1: A system and method for video frame interpolation are disclosed
US-20210407105-A1: The present disclosure relates to a motion estimation method, a chip, an electronic device, and a storage medium
US-20220270267-A1: Embodiments of the disclosure provide systems and methods for performing occlusion detection in frame rate up-conversion of video data including a sequence of image frames. The method includes determining, by a video processor, whether a target block of a target frame is a potential occlusion block based on at least one of motion vector information or distortion metric information associated with the target block.
US-20210185294-A1: A rendering workload for an individual frame can be split between a head-mounted display (HMD) and a host computer that is executing an application.
US-20210258555-A1: motion smoothing techniques for a display, or display system, such as a head-mounted display (HMD), to account for motion of moving or animating objects in a way that mitigates judder.
US-20220230327-A1: A graphics processing system and method of operating a graphics processing system that generates “spacewarped” frames for display is disclosed. Motion vectors are used to determine the motion of objects appearing in rendered application frames. The so-determined motion is then used to generate “spacewarped” versions of the rendered application frames.
US-20140301463-A1: There are disclosed various methods, apparatuses and computer program products for video encoding and decoding.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights