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 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.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2015/0093036).
Regarding claim 16, Part et al. discloses a flow chart in figures 5 and 6 that teaches technique for transcoding graphical texture such as: one or more processors to select one or more compression modes to use for individual blocks in transcoding a graphical texture from an input format to a target format, an encoder for the target format selecting the compression modes to use to transcode the individual blocks from a predetermined list of modes generated for the graphical texture during a prior encoding of the graphical texture (see figures 5,6 and their descriptions).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Part et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (2023/0245420).
Regarding claim 17, Park fails to teach or suggest format is a block compression (BC6 or BC7) format or an adaptive scalable texture compression (ASTC) format.
While, Yuan et al. discloses an image processing technique that teaches format is an adaptive scalable texture compression (ASTC) format (see para. 0038 and 0077).
Therefore, it would be an obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to include Yuan’s teaching into Park’s disclosure to satisfy the invention’s need.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Part et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0351769).
Regarding claim 20, Park fails to teach or suggest a system for performing simulation operation.
While, Wu et al. discloses a technique that teaches a system for performing simulation operation (see para 0026, claim 12 and claim 22).
Therefore, it would be an obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to include Wang’s teaching into Park’s disclosure to satisfy the invention’s need.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the predetermined list of modes is generated using a compressor allowed to test a plurality of possible options for the target format for the individual blocks of the graphical texture.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the input format is selected to reduce a storage size of the texture while satisfying at least one quality metric with respect to an initial version of the graphical texture.
Claims 1-15 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 is allowed over the closest prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest invented features, which is “testing, during a transcoding of the graphical texture, at least a subset of the set of compression modes for the individual blocks of the graphical texture to select a respective compression mode from a plurality of compression modes to use to encode one or more of the individual blocks”, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claim and dependent claims.
Claim 10 is allowed over the closest prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest invented features, which is “analyze, during a transcoding of the graphical texture, at least a subset of the set of compression modes for individual blocks of the graphical texture to select respective compression modes of a plurality of compression modes to use to encode the individual blocks”, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claim and dependent claims.
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.”
Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights