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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: RENDERING METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RENDERING A TWO-DIMENSIONAL PATCH IN A PREDICTED IMAGE FRAME.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 3 recites “wherein source code of a vertex shader comprises attribute information of a patch,” but none of these recitations refer to elements of the parent claim. For example, “a patch” in claim 3 does not refer to one of the first or second patches recited in claim 1, nor does the recited “a two-dimensional patch whose shape and relative positions of vertexes remain unchanged.” The Examiner recommends amending claim 3 to use proper antecedent basis to refer to one or more elements of claim 1.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 9 describes a computer-readable storage medium. Further, Applicant's specification fails to explicitly limit the scope of a computer-readable storage medium. Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2106.03 II), the claimed computer-readable storage medium is considered to include both transitory and non-transitory media. Transitory media are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bugwadia et al. (US 6,229,570; hereinafter “Bugwadia”).
Regarding claim 1, Bugwadia discloses A rendering method (“interpolate missing or required frames,” abstract), comprising: obtaining rendering parameter information of a first patch in a first real frame, absolute coordinates of the first patch, rendering parameter information of a second patch in a second real frame, and absolute coordinates of the second patch (“moving rigid object … Let (x, y) and (x', y') be the image-space coordinates of two frames … the parameters can be determined,” col. 9, lines 20-50), wherein the first real frame and the second real frame are adjacent real frames (“two frames at times t1 and t2,” col. 9, lines 25-30), and the first patch and the second patch are two-dimensional patches (“the patches of this transformation are triangles,” col. 9, lines 45-50) whose shapes and relative positions of vertexes remain unchanged (“moving rigid object,” col. 9, lines 20-30; “the parameters can be determined from motion vectors of 3 vertices,” col. 9, lines 45-50; a rigid object is an object whose shape does not change); if the rendering parameter information of the first patch is the same as the rendering parameter information of the second patch (“rigid object,” col. 9, lines 20-30; an object whose shape does not change between frames includes common rendering parameters), and the absolute coordinates of the first patch and the absolute coordinates of the second patch are within a specific range (“conducting a search within the search area,” col. 15, lines 15-25), determining absolute coordinates of a target patch based on the absolute coordinates of the first patch and the absolute coordinates of the second patch, wherein the target patch is located in a prediction frame obtained based on the first real frame and the second real frame (“Compute the motion parameters (ai1 – ai6) for each patch … estimate the horizontal and vertical displacements … at the missing values of time,” col. 10, lines 10-35); and rendering the target patch based on the absolute coordinates of the target patch and the rendering parameter information (“Interpolate the missing frames,” col. 10, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 2, Bugwadia discloses wherein the rendering parameter information of the first patch or the rendering parameter information of the second patch comprises at least one of the following information: texture coordinates mapped to each vertex of a patch, an identifier of a program to which a patch belongs, or a quantity of vertexes of a patch (“the patches of this transformation are triangles,” Bugwadia, col. 9, lines 45-50; all triangles have 3 vertices).
Regarding claim 4, Bugwadia discloses performing smoothing processing on the absolute coordinates of the first patch and the absolute coordinates of the second patch to obtain the absolute coordinates of the target patch (“A polynomial curve fit provides a smooth transition between the available and interpolated frames,” Bugwadia, col. 4, lines 35-45).
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.
Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugwadia in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 3, Bugwadia discloses wherein source code comprises attribute information of a patch, and the attribute information is used to indicate that a patch is a two-dimensional patch whose shape and relative positions of vertexes remain unchanged (“performing a hierarchical block matching technique on the blocks of each frame with respect to other frames in the sequence of existing frames to produce integer displacement vectors,” Bugwadia; col. 2, lines 15-25; “describes the motion of image objects by the translational motion of 2-D blocks … moving rigid object … the patches of this transformation are triangles,” Bugwadia, col. 9, lines 10-50).
Bugwadia does not disclose a vertex shader.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that both the concepts and the advantages of using a vertex shader were well known and expected in the art of computer graphics before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a vertex shader in Bugwadia in order to increase graphics efficiency through the use of dedicated graphics programs (i.e. shaders).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Bugwadia does not explicitly describe An electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions, and when the processor executes the instructions, the method according to claim 1 is performed (claim 8) or A computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed on an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the method according to claim 1 (claim 9).
The Examiner takes Official Notice that both the concepts and the advantages of using a processor and a memory and a computer-readable storage medium with processor-executable instructions were well known and expected in the art of computer graphics before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a processor and a memory and a computer-readable storage medium with processor-executable instructions in Bugwadia in order to increase graphics efficiency and lower costs through the use of common computer components.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugwadia in view of Stack Exchange (“Linear extrapolation”).
Regarding claim 5, Bugwadia discloses wherein when the prediction frame is located between the first real frame and the second real frame (“C represents a missing frame between A and B to be interpolated,” Bugwadia, col. 5, lines 45-50).
Bugwadia does not disclose the exact words the absolute coordinates P of the target patch are obtained by using the following formula: P=(P1*W1 + P2*W2)/(W1 + W2), wherein P1 is the absolute coordinates of the first patch, P2 is the absolute coordinates of the second patch, and W1 and W2 are weight coefficients.
In the same art of interpolating values, Stack Exchange teaches an equivalent interpolation equation: “(1 − t) ∗ a + t ∗ b , as t moves from 0 to 1” (pg. 1), where a and b are analogous to the claimed absolute coordinates, and t and (1 – t) are analogous to the claimed weights. Since the claimed denominator W1 + W2 is merely the sum of the two weights, and the two weights t and (1 – t) of Stack Exchange sum to 1, one having ordinary skill in the art can see that the claimed equation (P1*W1 + P2*W2)/(W1 + W2) is an obvious variation of the Stack Exchange equation (1 − t) ∗ a + t ∗ b.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Stack Exchange to Bugwadia. The motivation would have been to accurately and efficiently calculate interpolated frames.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bugwadia and Stack Exchange renders obvious wherein W1 and W2 are equal (Stack Exchange specifies that the weights are between 0 and 1, and choosing 0.5 as both t and (1 – t) is an obvious design choice that would place the interpolated value directly in the middle of the two endpoints; see claim 5 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 7, Bugwadia does not disclose wherein when the prediction frame is located after the first real frame and the second real frame, the absolute coordinates P of the target patch are obtained by using the following formula: P=P2+(P2-P1)*W, wherein P1 is the absolute coordinates of the first patch, P2 is the absolute coordinates of the second patch, and W is a weight coefficient.
In the same art of interpolation/extrapolation, Stack Exchange teaches an equivalent extrapolation equation: “b + t(b − a)” (pg. 1), where a and b are analogous to the claimed absolute coordinates, and t is analogous to the claimed weight.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Stack Exchange to Bugwadia. The motivation would have been to accurately and efficiently calculate extrapolated frames.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through 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, 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights