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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number GB 1612403.4 dated 18 July 2016. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 31 October 2024 and 21 July 2026 have been considered and placed in the application file.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
• On page 1, the cross reference to related applications contains a blank.
• On page 4, the paragraph numbering improperly re-starts after paragraph [0008].
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification - Title
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: Using High and Low Resolution pictures to create Integrated Circuit Images.
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.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims appear to be directed to a software embodiment and not to hardware embodiment, where a machine claim is directed towards a system, apparatus, or arrangement. The claim appears to be directed towards a software embodiment. Paragraphs [0033]-[0072] of the Published Specification describes the elements of the system being implemented as software alone actualizing the embodiments of the invention. The claimed limitations are capable of being performed as software as described in the above paragraphs, alone since no hardware component is being claimed. Software, alone, are not physical components and thus are not statutory since software do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer programs and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer' s program functionality to be realized. Hence, the stated functions comprise software and is thus not directed to a hardware embodiment. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31, USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between data and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure' s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure' s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Claims 1-10 are directed at a “decoder unit,” which is an apparatus. Examiner then used 35 USC 112(f) to give the apparatus parts and pieces, which satisfied step 1 of the analysis, but even given there is a “machine” that is nominally defined in the specification, the claims only define software without parts, such as a monitor or integrated circuit image output to make it more than pure software.
Claims 11-19 are directed to a method, but the results of the method are contained within “the filter sub-unit” which then does not change anything outside the method, such that the method is not producing anything and ends up as just software.
An Examiner Interview is recommended.
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 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), 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):
(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.
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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A decoder unit configured to in claim 1 and 20;
a difference decoder arranged to decode in claim 1 and 20;
a filter sub-unit arranged to in claim 1 and 20;
a pre-filter arranged to in claim 8; and
a bilinear filtering unit arranged to perform bilinear filtering in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Interpretation
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 3, 5-7, 13, 15-17 recite “at least one of.” Since “at least one of” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. (15/651,033), (16/422,545), (16/422,470) and (18/934,146) (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all applications claim:
An encoder/ decoder unit with encoded differences between the first and second images and output a difference quad and a prediction value.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of this application have not in fact been patented.
A concise explanation of how the claims of this application patentably differs from the claims of the prior applications, along with a terminal disclaimer, will cause reconsideration of this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2007 0070078 A1, (Schilling et al.). References are listed in the Notice of Cited References when they were first cited. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text.
[AltContent: textbox (Schilling et al. Fig. 2, showing textels at various levels of resolution.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
360
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Schilling et al. disclose a decoder unit configured to sample compressed image data, the compressed image data comprising data encoding a first image and data encoding differences between the first image and a second image ("A preferred decoder for decoding of a CCC-encoded image is shown in FIG. 5," paragraph [0040]), the decoder unit comprising:
a difference decoder arranged to decode fetched encoded differences between the first and second images and output a difference quad and a prediction value for a pixel ("A difference vector DeltR =(Deltu, Deltv) is constructed," paragraph [0085] and "Two examples are shown in FIG. 12, where the gray shaded areas are in the pixel projections (footprints), which are approximated by two or four squares" paragraph [0086] where projections are prediction values); and
a filter sub-unit arranged to generate a reconstruction of the image using decoded data encoding the first image, the difference quad and the prediction value ("volume rendering of RGB a-data sets takes two memory accesses per resample location. Thus, in a four-chip-configuration, rendering a 64x128x128 data set takes about 70 ms assuming one resample location per volume element. Tri-linear reconstruction and gradient estimation of original data sets take eight accesses per ray point," paragraph [0059]).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Schilling et al. disclose the decoder unit according to claim 1, wherein the first image and the second image are textures and the pixels are texels ("In a mipmap, the original image is denoted as level 0. In level 1, each entry holds an averaged value and represents the area of 2x2 texels. As used herein the term "texel" (texture element) refers to a picture element (pixel) of the texture," paragraph [0005]).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Schilling et al. disclose a method of sampling compressed image data ("A preferred decoder for decoding of a CCC-encoded image is shown in FIG. 5," paragraph [0040]), the compressed image data comprising data encoding a first image and data encoding differences between the first image and a second image, the method comprising:
decoding, in a difference decoder, fetched encoded differences between the first and second images ("A difference vector DeltR =(Deltu, Deltv) is constructed," paragraph [0085]);
outputting, from the difference decoder, a difference quad and a prediction value for a pixel ("Two examples are shown in FIG. 12, where the gray shaded areas are in the pixel projections (footprints), which are approximated by two or four squares" paragraph [0086] where projections are prediction values); and
generating, in a filter sub-unit, a reconstruction of the image using decoded data encoding the first image, the difference quad and the prediction value ("volume rendering of RGB a-data sets takes two memory accesses per resample location. Thus, in a four-chip-configuration, rendering a 64x128x128 data set takes about 70 ms assuming one resample location per volume element. Tri-linear reconstruction and gradient estimation of original data sets take eight accesses per ray point," paragraph [0059]).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Schilling et al. disclose the method according to claim 11, wherein the first image and the second image are textures and the pixels are texels ("In a mipmap, the original image is denoted as level 0. In level 1, each entry holds an averaged value and represents the area of 2x2 texels. As used herein the term "texel" (texture element) refers to a picture element (pixel) of the texture," paragraph [0005]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2007 0070078 A1, (Schilling et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2015 0228050 A1, (Nystad et al.). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text.
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Schilling et al. teach the decoder unit according to claim 1, further comprising one or more vector lookup tables ("The decoder 502 consists of multiplexers 504 and 506 and a lookup table 508," paragraph [0040]) and wherein the fetched encoded difference data comprise an identifier for a first vector and an identifier for a second vector ("Thus, for using this mode, the rasterizer transfers u,v and A during the first, and A*vectr =(Deltu, Deltv) and N during a second access to the TEXRAM. The TEXRAM autonomously generates N sample locations and returns the averaged pixel color after a certain time to the rasterizer," paragraph [0086]).
Schilling et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of combining first and second vectors.
However, Nystad et al. teach wherein the difference decoder is arranged to decode the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images by combining the first and second vectors selected from one of the vector lookup tables using the identifiers to form decoded difference data ("The pairs of base data values could instead comprise, e.g., a base value and a difference value that can then be combined to give values for the texture data elements, if desired," paragraph [0113] and "The pairs of base data values could instead comprise, e.g., a base value and a difference value that can then be combined to give values for the texture data elements, if desired." paragraph [0651]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Method for adding detail to a Texture Map” as taught by Schilling et al. to use “Encoding an Decoding data” as taught by Nystad et al., showing that Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. are analogous art because both are compression and decompression schemes. The suggestion/motivation for combination is that, “Notwithstanding the relatively high compression rate and smaller compact nature of the data compression format of the technology described herein, it is still very capable of compressing, for example, different kinds of images, and in particular both real-world images and drawings, with little loss of quality.” as noted by the Nystad et al. disclosure in paragraph [0735], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that different pictures may need different compression schemes; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Schilling et al. teach the decoder unit according to claim 3, wherein the fetched encoded data further comprises a prediction mode bit and wherein the difference decoder is further arranged to decode the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images by selecting a vector lookup table to use based on the prediction mode bit ("the corresponding decision bit via line 518 to the select-input of multiplexer 506, which passes one of the color quantities "a" or "b" to the address inputs of look-up table 508," paragraph [0040] where the decision bit is a prediction mode bit, predicting color).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Schilling et al. teach the decoder unit according to claim 4, wherein the fetched encoded data further comprises one or more additional bits ("The compressed data for such a block thus consists of only two colors (seen at 402) and 16 bits (seen at 406 and hereafter referred to as "decision bits")," paragraph [0039]) and wherein the difference decoder is further arranged to flip the first and/or second vectors and/or rotate both the first and second vectors when combining the first and second vectors based on the one or more additional bits ("Texture coordinates are used to access the detail offset maps, yielding the detail region coordinates of the nearest-neighbor texel. Using these addresses, the detail mipmap is accessed and the color value is tri-linearly interpolated," paragraph [0073] where nearest-neighbor is flipping vectors or rotating vectors).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Schilling et al. teach the method according to claim 11, wherein the fetched encoded difference data comprises an identifier for a first vector and an identifier for a second vector("Thus, for using this mode, the rasterizer transfers u,v and A during the first, and A*vectr =(Deltu, Deltv) and N during a second access to the TEXRAM. The TEXRAM autonomously generates N sample locations and returns the averaged pixel color after a certain time to the rasterizer," paragraph [0086]).
Schilling et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of combining the first and second vectors.
However, Nystad et al. teach decoding the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images comprises:
decoding the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images by combining the first and second vectors selected from one of a plurality of vector lookup tables using the identifiers to form a decoded difference data ("The pairs of base data values could instead comprise, e.g., a base value and a difference value that can then be combined to give values for the texture data elements, if desired," paragraph [0113] and "The pairs of base data values could instead comprise, e.g., a base value and a difference value that can then be combined to give values for the texture data elements, if desired." paragraph [0651]).
Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Schilling et al. teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the fetched encoded data further comprises a prediction mode bit and decoding the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images further comprises:
decoding the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images by selecting a vector lookup table to use based on the prediction mode bit ("the corresponding decision bit via line 518 to the select-input of multiplexer 506, which passes one of the color quantities "a" or "b" to the address inputs of look-up table 508," paragraph [0040] where the decision bit is a prediction mode bit, predicting color).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Schilling et al. teach the method according to claim 14, wherein the fetched encoded data further comprises one or more additional bits ("The compressed data for such a block thus consists of only two colors (seen at 402) and 16 bits (seen at 406 and hereafter referred to as "decision bits")," paragraph [0039]) and decoding the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images further comprises:
2nd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2007 0070078 A1, (Schilling et al.) and US Patent Publication 2015 0228050 A1, (Nystad et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2003 0201994 A1, (Taylor et al.). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text.
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. teach the decoder unit according to claim 3, as noted above.
Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. are not relied upon to explicitly teach all of least significant bits.
However, Taylor et al. teach wherein the difference decoder is further arranged to select a difference quad from the decoded difference data using one or more least significant bits of the coordinates of a sample position ("When the stipple pattern is accessed for use by the windower mask, the 16 bits per span are accessed as a tile for that span. The read address most significant bits are the three least significant bits of the y span identification, while the read address least significant bits are the x span identification least significant bits," paragraph [0074]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Schilling et al., Nystad et al. and Taylor et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Method for adding detail to a Texture Map” as taught by Schilling et al. and “Encoding an Decoding data” as taught by Nystad et al. to use “Pixel engine” as taught by Taylor et al., showing that Schilling et al., Nystad et al. and Taylor et al. are analogous art because all are compression and decompression schemes. The suggestion/motivation for combination is that “The major difference between these cases and the previous ones is the ability of the encoder to provide two distinct motion vectors, one to be used with the upper group of 16x8 pixels and the other to be used with the lower 16x8 pixels. Since each motion vector describes a smaller region of the image, it has the potential for providing a more accurate prediction..” as noted by the Taylor et al. disclosure in paragraph [0334], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher accuracy as there is a reasonable expectation that different pictures may need different compression schemes; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. teach the method according to claim 13, as noted above.
Schilling et al. and Nystad et al. are not relied upon to explicitly teach all of least significant bits.
However, Taylor et al. teach wherein decoding the fetched encoded differences between the first and second images further comprises:
selecting a difference quad from the decoded difference data using one or more least significant bits of the coordinates of a sample position ("When the stipple pattern is accessed for use by the windower mask, the 16 bits per span are accessed as a tile for that span. The read address most significant bits are the three least significant bits of the y span identification, while the read address least significant bits are the x span identification least significant bits," paragraph [0074]).
Schilling et al., Nystad et al. and Taylor et al. are combined as per claim 7.
3rd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2008 0101473 A1, (Tanaka et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2007 0070078 A1, (Schilling et al.). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text.
[AltContent: textbox (Tanaka et al, Fig. 31B, showing the use of two reference images.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
263
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Tanaka et al. teach an integrated circuit manufacturing system ("system encoder 105 function blocks are typically rendered by an LSI device, which is an integrated circuit device. These parts can be rendered individually as single chips, or as a single chip containing some or all of these parts," paragraph [0229]) comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable dataset description of an integrated circuit that describes a decoder unit ("a memory for storing the difference data," paragraph [0020]);
a layout processing system configured to process the integrated circuit description so as to generate a circuit layout description of an integrated circuit embodying the decoder unit ("a transformation unit that receives picture structure information and macroblock referencing information input from the decoding unit, and converts the picture structure information and the macroblock referencing information to picture structure information and macroblock referencing information according to a second encoding standard," paragraph [0020]); and
an integrated circuit generation system configured to manufacture the decoder unit according to the circuit layout description ("system encoder 105 function blocks are typically rendered by an LSI device, which is an integrated circuit device. These parts can be rendered individually as single chips, or as a single chip containing some or all of these parts," paragraph [0229]).
Tanaka et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of difference quads.
However, Schilling et al. teach wherein the decoder unit comprises:
a difference decoder arranged to decode fetched encoded differences between the first and second images and output a difference quad and a prediction value for a pixel ("A difference vector DeltR =(Deltu, Deltv) is constructed," paragraph [0085] and "Two examples are shown in FIG. 12, where the gray shaded areas are in the pixel projections (footprints), which are approximated by two or four squares" paragraph [0086] where projections are prediction values); and
a filter sub-unit arranged to generate a reconstruction of the image using decoded data encoding the first image, the difference quad and the prediction value ("volume rendering of RGB a-data sets takes two memory accesses per resample location. Thus, in a four-chip-configuration, rendering a 64x128x128 data set takes about 70 ms assuming one resample location per volume element. Tri-linear reconstruction and gradient estimation of original data sets take eight accesses per ray point," paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Tanaka et al. and Schilling et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Transcoding apparatus and Method as taught by Tanaka et al. to use “Method for Adding Detail to a Texture Map” as taught by Schilling et al., showing that Tanaka et al. and Schilling et al. are analogous art because both are translating one form of data to a second form. The suggestion/motivation for combination is that, “Real-time mipmap generation is compulsory for video mapping, but is useful for any texture map. We use a 2x2 box filter for this purpose” as noted by the Schilling et al. disclosure in paragraph [0089], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher productivity as there is a reasonable expectation that different images will need different formats for efficient storage and transfer; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-10, 16 and 18-19 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 and to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2020 0177910 A1 to Li et al. discloses Innovations in intra block copy ("BC") prediction mode facilitate intra BC prediction that is more effective in terms of rate-distortion performance and/or computational efficiency of encoding and decoding.
Non Patent Publication “High-Quality Mipmapping Texture Compression With Alpha Maps for Graphics Processing Units,” to Sun et al. discloses a high-quality mipmapping texture compression (MTC) system with alpha maps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/Heath E. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 3 September 2026
Prosecution Insights