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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11677927 maps below and 12166954. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 11677927 contains all of the limitations of the current claims, but for the use of “tile” instead of “portion”, where a “portion” could be a tile. See also Double Patenting rejection in Non-Final Rejection 11/22/23 between 11677927 and 12166954.
18/969001
11677927 (17/215647)
A method of rendering a stereoscopic image comprising a left image and a right image of a three-dimensional scene in a tile-based graphics processing module, the method comprising:
A method of rendering a stereoscopic image comprising a left image and a right image of a three-dimensional scene in a graphics processing module, the method comprising:
processing geometry in the scene to generate left data for use in displaying the left image and right data for use in displaying the right image;
comparing corresponding tiles of the left image and the right image to determine disparity;
determining disparity between the left data and the right data based upon a comparison of the generated left data and the generated right data used in displaying the stereoscopic image;
commonly processing a portion of the left image and the right image for a corresponding tile that is identified as non-disparate;
in response to identifying at least a portion of the left data corresponding to a group of pixels of the left image, and at least a portion of the right data correspondinq to a group of pixels of the riqht imaqe as non-disparate, commonly processing a corresponding portion of the left image and the right image;
and separately processing another portion of the left image and the right image for a corresponding tile that is identified as disparate.
[[and]] in response to identifying at least a portion of the left data and the right data as disparate, separately processing a corresponding portion of the left image and the right image;
and maintaining, for each corresponding group of pixels of the left image and group of pixels of the right image, a disparity status that indicates whether there is disparity between the left data for use in displaying the group of pixels in the left imaqe and the riqht data for use in displaying the corresponding group of pixels in the right image.
2
1
3
2
4
3
5
1
6
4
7
5
8
6
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
15
13
16
14
17
15
18
16
19
17
20
18
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
Layout processing system in claim 20.
Integrated circuit generation system in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Regarding claim 17 the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because under a broadest reasonable interpretation a “module” may be a software module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is rejected under Double Patenting above. However with the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer, claim 12 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alyshev U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20110050687 in view of Croxford U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180276873.
Regarding claim 1 (independent):
A method (Alyshev [0123], claim 79 FIG. 13 shows an exemplary embodiment of a rendering system 1310 for implementing the processes described above. The rendering system 1310 typically exists within a host data processing system. Such systems include personal computer systems, mobile communications devices, personal digital assistants, media players, and any other device or system that provides computing and user interface functions for accessing, manipulating or otherwise interacting with information and application programs, typically including a processor, memory, 3D visual display and user input means such as keyboards, keypads, touch screens and pointing devices.) of rendering a stereoscopic image comprising a left image and a right image of a three-dimensional scene in a (Alyshev [0128] It will be understood that the operation of the object type modules 1334 and rasteriser 1336 may be substantially identical to a conventional 2D rendering system. The data object types and parameters are interpreted by the 2D rendering system to influence the visual appearance of the display items, Exposing these same data object types and parameters for use within the 3D rules thus makes for an efficient system with relatively little modification to the 2D rendering system. Similarly, the conventional 2D rendering system processes the position coordinates of the data objects to determine the screen locations, and this same processing can be applied without modification to create left- and right-eye views of each display frame by applying appropriate offsets to the position coordinates in each view.) (Alyshev [0034], [0038] The stereoscopic 3D effects include lateral offsets in the X-direction of the X/Y display plane to be applied when rendering left- and right-eye copies of display items at respective screen locations, such that selected 2D display items may be perceived by a viewer as being displaced along a Z-axis perpendicular to said X/Y plane.).
commonly processing a portion of the left image and the right image for a corresponding (Alyshev [0122] The rendering processes for left and right copies of a particular object may be substantially identical and need be done only once for both copies of the object.).
and separately processing another portion of the left image and the right image for a corresponding (Alyshev [0122] Whilst the left and right copy rendering processes 620L-626L and 620R-626R are shown as separate, parallel processes in FIG. 6, it will be appreciated that this representation of the processing is schematic.).
Alyshev does not teach tiles. In a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
rendering a stereoscopic image comprising a left image and a right image of a three-dimensional scene (Croxford [0048] In another embodiment, the frame is a frame for use to generate a stereoscopic 3D image. ) in a tile-based graphics processing module, the method comprising: comparing corresponding tiles of the left image and the right image to determine disparity (Croxford [0050] In this case, the smaller frame regions that the frame is divided into can be any desired and suitable size or shape, but are in an embodiment rectangular (including square), and in an embodiment 8×8, 16×16 or 32×32 sampling (data) positions in size. In an embodiment, each frame region corresponds to one or more “processing” tiles that the frames are divided into for processing purposes, for example to a tile (or tiles) that a graphics processor, video engine, image processor, display controller, composition engine, etc. that is generating or processing the frame in question operates on and produces as its output.)
commonly processing a portion of the left image and the right image for a corresponding tile that is identified as non-disparate (Croxford [0198] As explained above, when a current tile is being written, the upper signature of the current tile can be compared with the upper signature of any other tile that has previously been written to memory. Thus, in the present example, the upper signature of a current tile in the current left frame can be compared with the upper signature of a tile in the previous left frame, of a tile in the previous right frame, or of a tile in the current right frame (that has already been written to the memory). If the high-order data portion of the current tile is determined to be similar to the high-order data portion of a previous tile that has already been written, the write operation of the high-order data portion of the current tile can be omitted.)
and separately processing another portion of the left image and the right image for a corresponding tile that is identified as disparate (Croxford [0223] If neither one of the upper signature nor the lower signature of the current tile matches the upper signature and the lower signature of the previous tile, the method proceeds to write both data portions of the current tile at step 1812, and to write the upper and lower signatures of the current tile at step 1813. The method again proceeds to step 1814 to check whether all tiles of the current frame have been processed. If so, the processing of the current frame ends at step 1816.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein comparing corresponding (Alyshev [0034], [0038] The stereoscopic 3D effects include lateral offsets in the X-direction of the X/Y display plane to be applied when rendering left- and right-eye copies of display items at respective screen locations, such that selected 2D display items may be perceived by a viewer as being displaced along a Z-axis perpendicular to said X/Y plane.).
Alyshev does not teach tiles. In a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
wherein comparing corresponding tiles of the left image and the right image comprises comparing left data for use in displaying the left image and right data for use in displaying the right image in the corresponding tiles (Croxford [0198] As explained above, when a current tile is being written, the upper signature of the current tile can be compared with the upper signature of any other tile that has previously been written to memory. Thus, in the present example, the upper signature of a current tile in the current left frame can be compared with the upper signature of a tile in the previous left frame, of a tile in the previous right frame, or of a tile in the current right frame (that has already been written to the memory). If the high-order data portion of the current tile is determined to be similar to the high-order data portion of a previous tile that has already been written, the write operation of the high-order data portion of the current tile can be omitted.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 3:
The method according to claim 2, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein the left data comprises data for elements of geometry for the left image and the right data comprises data for elements of geometry for the right image (Alyshev [0032] It can be seen from the foregoing that stereoscopic 3D effects are applied selectively to 2D display items. Data objects corresponding to the display items are processed to generate a display of the display items. In processing the data objects, 3D effects rules are applied on the basis of parameters associated with the data objects. The 3D effects rules determine the display items to which 3D effects are to be applied and the nature of such effects (particularly, the z-axis displacement that is to be applied). The 2D display items are rendered on the display screen such that a first rendering of the display items may be presented for viewing by a right eye of a viewer of the display and a second rendering of the display items may be presented for viewing by a left eye of the viewer.).
Regarding claim 4:
The method according to claim 2, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein the left data comprises pixel values for the left image and the right data comprises pixel values for the right image (Alyshev [0086] The rendering system processes the display list as described above to generate the visible display items contained within a current display frame, taking account of any scale or other transformations. Displaying the information on a computer display ultimately involves the step of converting the data into a display frame comprising a set of colour values corresponding to each pixel on the display screen. This process is known as scan conversion or rasterising, and is well known in the art. The output of the rendering system, following scan conversion, is thus a set of pixel colour values which represent the display items on the display screen. The output data may be rendered directly to the display memory of the computing device, or it may be stored in a buffer memory to be subsequently loaded into the display memory.).
Alyshev discloses pixels as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
wherein the left data comprises pixel values for the left image and the right data comprises pixel values for the right image (Croxford [0042] In another example, for stereoscopic 3D images formed of a pair of left and right images, the pair of images are similar once the interocular distance in the pixels of the two images is compensated, but there may be small differences due to differences in lighting conditions and viewing angles.)(Croxford [0145] In addition, each frame region comprises (is divided into) a plurality of data portions. Each data portion corresponds to a number of bits from (a subset of the bits for) the data values for the frame region. For example, as shown in FIG. 6, a frame region 640 comprises plural sampling positions (e.g. pixels) 650 (16 in the present example for illustration purpose, but in practice a frame region may comprise fewer or more sampling positions (pixels)). For each sampling position, a set of data values is stored in an RGB format with each colour channel having a dynamic range of 12 bits.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles with pixels as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles with pixels, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 5:
The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein the portion of the left image and the portion of the right image relates to a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and the right image (Alyshev [0086] The rendering system processes the display list as described above to generate the visible display items contained within a current display frame, taking account of any scale or other transformations. Displaying the information on a computer display ultimately involves the step of converting the data into a display frame comprising a set of colour values corresponding to each pixel on the display screen. This process is known as scan conversion or rasterising, and is well known in the art. The output of the rendering system, following scan conversion, is thus a set of pixel colour values which represent the display items on the display screen. The output data may be rendered directly to the display memory of the computing device, or it may be stored in a buffer memory to be subsequently loaded into the display memory.).
Alyshev discloses pixels as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
wherein the left data comprises pixel values for the left image and the right data comprises pixel values for the right image (Croxford [0042] In another example, for stereoscopic 3D images formed of a pair of left and right images, the pair of images are similar once the interocular distance in the pixels of the two images is compensated, but there may be small differences due to differences in lighting conditions and viewing angles.)(Croxford [0145] In addition, each frame region comprises (is divided into) a plurality of data portions. Each data portion corresponds to a number of bits from (a subset of the bits for) the data values for the frame region. For example, as shown in FIG. 6, a frame region 640 comprises plural sampling positions (e.g. pixels) 650 (16 in the present example for illustration purpose, but in practice a frame region may comprise fewer or more sampling positions (pixels)). For each sampling position, a set of data values is stored in an RGB format with each colour channel having a dynamic range of 12 bits.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles with pixels as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles with pixels, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 6:
The method according to claim 5, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein:
commonly processing a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and the right image comprises rendering pixel values for a single group of pixels for use in displaying the group of pixels in the left image and for use in displaying the corresponding group of pixels in the right image (Alyshev [0122] The rendering processes for left and right copies of a particular object may be substantially identical and need be done only once for both copies of the object.) (Alyshev [0086] The rendering system processes the display list as described above to generate the visible display items contained within a current display frame, taking account of any scale or other transformations. Displaying the information on a computer display ultimately involves the step of converting the data into a display frame comprising a set of colour values corresponding to each pixel on the display screen. This process is known as scan conversion or rasterising, and is well known in the art. The output of the rendering system, following scan conversion, is thus a set of pixel colour values which represent the display items on the display screen. The output data may be rendered directly to the display memory of the computing device, or it may be stored in a buffer memory to be subsequently loaded into the display memory.)..
and separately processing a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and the right image comprises separately rendering pixel values for the group of pixels in the left image and for the corresponding group of pixels in the right image (Alyshev [0122] Whilst the left and right copy rendering processes 620L-626L and 620R-626R are shown as separate, parallel processes in FIG. 6, it will be appreciated that this representation of the processing is schematic.) (Alyshev [0086] The rendering system processes the display list as described above to generate the visible display items contained within a current display frame, taking account of any scale or other transformations. Displaying the information on a computer display ultimately involves the step of converting the data into a display frame comprising a set of colour values corresponding to each pixel on the display screen. This process is known as scan conversion or rasterising, and is well known in the art. The output of the rendering system, following scan conversion, is thus a set of pixel colour values which represent the display items on the display screen. The output data may be rendered directly to the display memory of the computing device, or it may be stored in a buffer memory to be subsequently loaded into the display memory.).
Alyshev discloses pixels as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
commonly processing a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and the right image comprises rendering pixel values for a single group of pixels for use in displaying the group of pixels in the left image and for use in displaying the corresponding group of pixels in the right image (Croxford [0198] As explained above, when a current tile is being written, the upper signature of the current tile can be compared with the upper signature of any other tile that has previously been written to memory. Thus, in the present example, the upper signature of a current tile in the current left frame can be compared with the upper signature of a tile in the previous left frame, of a tile in the previous right frame, or of a tile in the current right frame (that has already been written to the memory). If the high-order data portion of the current tile is determined to be similar to the high-order data portion of a previous tile that has already been written, the write operation of the high-order data portion of the current tile can be omitted.)
and separately processing a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and the right image comprises separately rendering pixel values for the group of pixels in the left image and for the corresponding group of pixels in the right image (Croxford [0223] If neither one of the upper signature nor the lower signature of the current tile matches the upper signature and the lower signature of the previous tile, the method proceeds to write both data portions of the current tile at step 1812, and to write the upper and lower signatures of the current tile at step 1813. The method again proceeds to step 1814 to check whether all tiles of the current frame have been processed. If so, the processing of the current frame ends at step 1816.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles with pixels as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles with pixels, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 7:
The method according to claim 6, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein:
commonly processing a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and right image further comprises storing pixel values for a single group of pixels for use in displaying the group of pixels in the left image and for use in displaying the corresponding group of pixels in the right image and separately processing a corresponding group of pixels in the left image and the right image further comprises separately storing pixel values for the group of pixels in the left image and storing pixel values for the corresponding group of pixels in the right image (Alyshev [0106] The display items are rasterised into the pixel locations in display or buffer memory at 420. If a buffer is used, the final step, once it has been determined at 422 that all non-excluded objects have been processed, is to copy the final updated display frame of display items to the physical screen at 424.).
Alyshev discloses pixels as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
commonly processing a corresponding group of pixels of the left image and right image further comprises storing pixel values for a single group of pixels for use in displaying the group of pixels in the left image and for use in displaying the corresponding group of pixels in the right image and separately processing a corresponding group of pixels in the left image and the right image further comprises separately storing pixel values for the group of pixels in the left image and storing pixel values for the corresponding group of pixels in the right image (Croxford [0120] In these embodiments, the processing stage in question may be configured to read in (at least) the (first and second) surface regions in question (if necessary), e.g. from memory, to compare the surface regions (e.g. as described above), i.e. to generate the difference and/or similarity indicating information, and to then provide the difference and/or similarity indicating information to the display controller, e.g. by writing it to (the) memory. Correspondingly, the display controller may be configured to read the difference and/or similarity indicating information, e.g. from memory, and to provide that information to the display, e.g. in the manner of the technology described herein.)(Croxford [0122] This represents a particularly convenient arrangement, since for example, in this case there is no need for the difference and/or similarity indicating information to be written to (and then read from) memory, thereby reducing memory bandwidth and power. In addition, the “standard” operation of the frame generator(s) or other processing state(s) (i.e. generating surfaces and storing them in memory) need not be modified (and e.g. only the operation of the display controller and the display may be modified).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles with pixels as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles with pixels, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 8:
The method according to claim 7, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Croxford further teaches wherein commonly storing pixel values for a single group of pixels for use in displaying the group of pixels in the left image and for use in displaying the corresponding group of pixels in the right image comprises storing, in memory, the single group of pixels and a flag or reference indicating that the pixel values are for use in displaying the group of pixels in both the left image and the right image (Croxford [0155] Where these signatures are determined to be dissimilar (or insufficiently similar), then the (first) region of the output surface is in an embodiment compared to the other (second) region to generate similarity and/or difference indicating information, e.g. so as to determine an array of difference (“delta”) values as described above, and the (first) region is in an embodiment provided to the display at least partially in the form of this difference and/or similarity indicating information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store comparisons as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 9:
The method according to claim 7, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein the group of pixels is stored in a frame buffer memory from which the pixel values for the left and right images are to be retrieved for display (Alyshev [0232] A typical data processing system in which the PS3D effects are implemented will include a rendering system of some type that processes data objects in order to define the content of visual display frames that are stored in one or more frame buffers (or similar or equivalent display memory), and hence to determine the display content at any given time. The content of the frame buffer(s) includes the content of each of the left and right eye display views that are to be displayed via the applicable 3D display technology. Typically, the content of the frame buffer(s) is rendered into a screen buffer of the display device.).
Alyshev discloses frame buffers as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Croxford teaches:
wherein the group of pixels is stored in a frame buffer memory from which the pixel values for the left and right images are to be retrieved for display (Croxford [0281] FIG. 7 illustrates such an arrangement where a pair stereoscopic images is to be displayed. As shown in FIG. 7, the display controller 14 fetches the left and right image data from respective frame buffers 41, 42, compares the images so as to generate difference data using comparison logic 18, and then sends the (optionally DSC compressed 17) difference data to the display 20 via the display interface 30.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store comparisons in a frame buffer as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 10:
The method according to claim 5, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches wherein the group of pixels forms a tile, and the method further comprises maintaining in memory a common tile (Croxford [0198] As explained above, when a current tile is being written, the upper signature of the current tile can be compared with the upper signature of any other tile that has previously been written to memory. Thus, in the present example, the upper signature of a current tile in the current left frame can be compared with the upper signature of a tile in the previous left frame, of a tile in the previous right frame, or of a tile in the current right frame (that has already been written to the memory). If the high-order data portion of the current tile is determined to be similar to the high-order data portion of a previous tile that has already been written, the write operation of the high-order data portion of the current tile can be omitted.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tiles as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 11:
The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Croxford further teaches further comprising maintaining, for each corresponding pixel position in the left image and the right image, a disparity status that indicates whether there is disparity between the left and right data associated with that pixel position (Croxford [0155] Where these signatures are determined to be dissimilar (or insufficiently similar), then the (first) region of the output surface is in an embodiment compared to the other (second) region to generate similarity and/or difference indicating information, e.g. so as to determine an array of difference (“delta”) values as described above, and the (first) region is in an embodiment provided to the display at least partially in the form of this difference and/or similarity indicating information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store comparisons as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 13:
The method according to claim 11, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Alyshev further teaches further comprising, in response to determining that a received element of geometry is visible at a pixel position, updating the disparity status of that pixel position to reflect the disparity between corresponding elements of geometry for the left image and the right image (Alyshev [0106] On receipt of the request the positional information contained in the position coordinates, and bounding boxes if they are included, within the display list 412 is used at 414 to exclude any data objects which are not visible on the new display to be created.)(Alyshev [0127] In preferred embodiments of the rendering system 1310, the display list 1312 is processed in a non-visible object exclusion process 1324, to exclude from further processing those objects that will not be visible in the rendered display frame. Non-excluded objects are then passed to a 3D effects module 1326 for testing against the 3D rules defined within a 3D rules module 1328.) (Alyshev [0128] It will be understood that the operation of the object type modules 1334 and rasteriser 1336 may be substantially identical to a conventional 2D rendering system. The data object types and parameters are interpreted by the 2D rendering system to influence the visual appearance of the display items, Exposing these same data object types and parameters for use within the 3D rules thus makes for an efficient system with relatively little modification to the 2D rendering system. Similarly, the conventional 2D rendering system processes the position coordinates of the data objects to determine the screen locations, and this same processing can be applied without modification to create left- and right-eye views of each display frame by applying appropriate offsets to the position coordinates in each view.) (Alyshev [0034], [0038] The stereoscopic 3D effects include lateral offsets in the X-direction of the X/Y display plane to be applied when rendering left- and right-eye copies of display items at respective screen locations, such that selected 2D display items may be perceived by a viewer as being displaced along a Z-axis perpendicular to said X/Y plane.)..
Regarding claim 14:
The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Croxford further teaches wherein commonly processing the corresponding portion of the left image and the right image comprises storing a single pixel value for use in a corresponding pixel position in both the left and right images (Croxford [0155] Where these signatures are determined to be dissimilar (or insufficiently similar), then the (first) region of the output surface is in an embodiment compared to the other (second) region to generate similarity and/or difference indicating information, e.g. so as to determine an array of difference (“delta”) values as described above, and the (first) region is in an embodiment provided to the display at least partially in the form of this difference and/or similarity indicating information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store comparisons as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 15:
The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Alyshev in view of Croxford. Croxford further teaches wherein separately processing the corresponding portion of the left image and the right image comprises storing separate left and right pixel values for a corresponding pixel position in the left and right images (or insufficiently similar), then the (first) region of the output surface is in an embodiment compared to the other (second) region to generate similarity and/or difference indicating information, e.g. so as to determine an array of difference (“delta”) values as described above, and the (first) region is in an embodiment provided to the display at least partially in the form of this difference and/or similarity indicating information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store comparisons as taught by Croxford. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of memory accesses (Croxford [0009]) as well as reduce bandwidth and memory usage (Croxford [0183]). Further the rationale to modify is that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Alyshev checks similarity of objects and Croxford checks similarity of tiles, where the end result is to reduce the processing load by comparing portions of a left and right eye frame and reusing data. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Croxford with Alyshev to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 17 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 18 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights