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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu et al. (2025/0045873) in view of OOISHI et al (2021/0272293) in further view of Lee et al. (20230132473).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20 Kundu discloses a method of image display, comprising:
obtaining a first image, the first image comprising an image obtained after a rendering process (from image sensor 612 and rendered as signals to 618 in figure 6B);
determining a target area and a non-target area (See paragraph 78), wherein the target area is an estimated result of an area with eye gaze when the first image is displayed on a screen of a terminal device (paragraph 78 where ROI is the target area), and the non-target area is an estimated result of an area without eye gaze when the first image is displayed on the screen of the terminal device (see images described in step 902 of figure 9);
obtaining a first sub image and a second sub image by processing the first image obtaining a first sub-image by compressing the first image, wherein the first sub-image corresponds to both the target area and the non-target area (paragraph 76 and 79 and steps 906 and 908 of figure 9) ;
obtaining a second sub-image by cropping an area of the first image corresponding to the target area (see paragraphs 79 and 80), wherein the first sub-image and the second sub-image are stored in different buffers (figure 11 storage device has different regions 1120, 1125, 1112 and1132-1136) , the first sub image corresponds to both the target area and the non-target area, and the second sub image corresponds to the target area; and
displaying the first sub-image and the second sub-image on the screen of the terminal device, to cause image definition in the non-target area to be lower than image definition in the target area (step 910).
Kundu fails to explicitly teach the separate buffers required in the claims, however OOISHI does. (see paragraphs 198-205 and figures 18-20). Since it is well understood in the art that areas of an image can be extracted out for separate storage and processing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the processing structure of OOISHI in Kundu’s system. The motivation for doing so would be to have different processors perform different functions in parallel, thus producing faster processing times.
Both Kundu and OOISHI fail to teach the newly added limitation of “the first image comprising an image obtained after a drawing and rendering process”. However, Lee et al teach that it is well known to capture, then stitch edit (which is considered synthesizing an image from drawing and rendering process). Lee et al also show that after synthesizing an image from drawing and rendering process, that head and eye tracking are done after (see figure 1, and figures 5-7 where eye tracking (gaze) is returned to the transmission side where the image is first synthesized). Since it is well understood in the art that tracking gaze after rendering and drawing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify both Kundu and OOISHI with Lee et al to ensure that the ROI (region of interest) be encoded properly and prioritized over other video regions. (see Lee et al paragraphs 185-186 and figure 10 B. Lee et al also teach that the viewpoint region has higher quality than other tiles (non-target area). Therefore, one would have been motivated to combine teaches to include the details of receiver side feedback to allow for target area tracking to take place at a remote location.
As for claims 2 and 12 (Currently amended), Kundu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing the first sub-image in a first buffer (note front end 810 in figure 8 stores sub images in different portions of Memory 812);
storing the second sub-image in a second buffer note front end 810 in figure 8 stores sub images in different portions of Memory 812); and
before displaying the first sub-image and the second sub-image on the screen of the terminal device
As for claims 3 and 13 (Currently amended) Kundo teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a resolution of the first image is (w, h), a resolution of the first sub-image is (w/m, h/m), and a resolution of the second sub-image is (w/n, h/n), wherein m is a parameter determined based on a compression requirement for the first image, n is a parameter determined based on a ratio of a size of the first image to a size of the target area, w, h, m, n, w/m, h/m, w/n, and h/n are positive integers, and both m and n are greater than or equal to 2 (steps 906 and 908 of figure 9 wherein sizes of areas are described in paragraph 112).
As for claims 4 and 14, Kundo teaches the method of claim 3, wherein displaying the first sub-image and the second sub-image on the screen of the terminal device comprises: stretching the first sub-image based on a target stretch coefficient; and displaying the second sub-image and the stretched first sub-image on the screen of the terminal device. (see paragraph 112 where ROI in increased (stretched) in the direction of motion)
As for claim 5 and 15, Kundo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the first sub-image and the second sub-image on the screen of the terminal device comprises: synthesizing the first sub-image and the second sub-image, to obtain a frame image to be displayed; and displaying the frame image on the screen of the terminal device. (note blending unit 816 synthesizes a blended image)
As for claims 6 and 16, Kundo teaches the method of claim 5, wherein synthesizing the first sub-image and the second sub-image to obtain the frame image to be displayed further comprises: performing anti-aliasing on the second sub-image by a graphics processor; performing anti-aliasing on the first sub-image by a hardware composer; and synthesizing the first sub-image and the second sub-image that are subjected to anti- aliasing by the hardware composer, to obtain the frame image to be displayed. (see paragraph 46 where image processing is taught to avoid aliasing)
As for claims 7 and 17, Kundo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first image comprises: obtaining a plurality of image layers that constitute the first image; and synthesizing the plurality of image layers to obtain the first image. (image is synthesized from color signals paragraph 42+)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kundo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein to cause the image definition in the non- target area to be lower than the image definition in the target area comprises: reducing image definition of the first sub-image, and keeping image definition of the second sub-image unchanged. See paragraph 113.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 19, Kundo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein cropping the first image based on the target area to obtain the second sub image obtaining the second sub-image comprises: projecting the target area on the first image; and cropping a projection area corresponding to the target area in the first image, to obtain the second sub-image. (see paragraph 79)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7331. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 to 4 pm alternate Fridays off.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1617. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights