DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (CN108986033A, English machine translation by Espacenet), hereinafter “Zhao”.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches:
A computer implemented method (See the Abstract.), comprising:
determining a transverse scaling coefficient and a longitudinal scaling coefficient as integers through a fixed-point operation based on a size of a source image, a size of a destination image, and an integer displacement value (See [0011]: “Determine the input image and the target image. The input image size is a×b, and the target image size is m×n. Determine the scaling factors of the input image and the target image in the row and column directions, and then obtain the optimized row scaling factor and the optimized column scaling factor.”);
determining, for each to-be-processed pixel point in the destination image, coordinates of a source pixel point in the source image corresponding to the to-be-processed pixel point, and an integer fixed-point interpolation coefficient through the fixed-point operation based on coordinates of the to-be-processed pixel point, the transverse scaling coefficient, the longitudinal scaling coefficient, and the displacement value (See [0025]: “The calculation of the interpolation point coordinate depends on the scaling factor of the image. In other words, compared with the basic bilinear interpolation algorithm, the applied bilinear interpolation algorithm requires the coordinates of the interpolation point to be determined before the interpolation calculation.”);
determining a pixel value of the to-be-processed pixel point through the fixed-point operation based on a pixel value of the source pixel point, the fixed-point interpolation coefficient, and the displacement value (See [0031]: “used as reference pixel values at pixel coordinates (i,j) in the target image for bilinear interpolation to obtain the pixel value of the virtual pixel in the input image corresponding to pixel coordinates (i,j) in the target image based on the basic bilinear interpolation algorithm.”); and
generating the destination image based on the pixel value of each to-be-processed pixel point in the destination image (See [0028]: “Based on the rounded row scaling factor yf' and the rounded column scaling factor xf', the scaled target image is obtained. The scaled target image is an image scaling result processed by a bilinear interpolation algorithm.”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the fixed-point operation comprises an integer division manner, the size comprising a width size and a height size, width size and the height size comprising a width value and a height value, and the determining the transverse scaling coefficient and the longitudinal scaling coefficient comprises: dividing, by the width value of the destination image in the integer division manner, the width value of the source image shifted to the left by a first quantity of bits, to obtain a quotient as the transverse scaling coefficient, the first quantity of bits being determined based on the displacement value; and dividing, by the height value of the destination image in the integer division manner, the height value of the source image shifted to the left by the first quantity of bits, to obtain a quotient as the longitudinal scaling coefficient (See [0061]: “Currently, the largest image size used in commonly used image processing processes is 2048×2048, meaning the data bit width for the number of rows and columns is 11 bits. The divisor of the scaling factor is the size of the target image, and the dividend is the data after shifting the input image size left by 16 bits. The calculation of the modified scaling factor is equivalent to dividing 27 bits of data by 11 bits of data.”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, for each to-be-processed pixel point in the destination image, coordinates of the source pixel point and the fixed-point interpolation coefficient comprises: shifting a product of an abscissa of the to-be-processed pixel point and the transverse scaling coefficient to the right by a first quantity of bits, to obtain an abscissa of a first source pixel point in the source image corresponding to the to-be-processed pixel point, the first quantity of bits being determined based on the displacement value; shifting a product of an ordinate of the to-be-processed pixel point and the longitudinal scaling coefficient to the right by the first quantity of bits, to obtain an ordinate of the first source pixel point; determining the coordinates of the source pixel point in the source image corresponding to the to-be-processed pixel point based on the abscissa and the ordinate of the first source pixel point and the size of the source image; and determining the fixed-point interpolation coefficient based on the abscissa and the ordinate of the first source pixel point, the abscissa and the ordinate of the to-be-processed pixel point, the transverse scaling coefficient, the longitudinal scaling coefficient, and the displacement value (See [0028]: “Based on the rounded row scaling factor yf' and the rounded column scaling factor xf', the scaled target image is obtained. The scaled target image is an image scaling result processed by a bilinear interpolation algorithm.”).
Zhao teaches claim 11 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 1.
Zhao teaches claim 12 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 2.
Zhao teaches claim 13 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 3.
Zhao teaches claim 19 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 1.
Zhao teaches claim 20 for the reasons given in the treatment of claims 2 and 3.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN108986033A, English machine translation by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein
Zhao does not disclose the following:
the displacement value is an integer in an interval of [7, 11].
Zhao describes in [0061], a data bit width of 11 bits and shifting the input image size by 16 bits. However, in the same paragraph, Zhao follows up with the caveats of selecting these values: “Because of the large data bit width, this operation may encounter timing inconsistencies at a clock frequency of 150MHz and a clock cycle of 6.67ns, meaning that the division operation cannot complete the calculation after one clock cycle.” Modifying the system and method of Zhao by simple substitution of 16 bits with “an integer in an interval of [7, 11]” would yield the expected and predictable result of preventing arithmetic overflow while balancing precision and memory usage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao in this way.
Modified Zhao meets claim 18 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 14-17 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.
The prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not disclose or suggest in claim 4: “determining a smaller value of the width value of the source image and a first numerical value as an abscissa of the second source pixel point, and determining the ordinate of the first source pixel point as an ordinate of the second source pixel point, the first numerical value being the abscissa of the first source pixel point plus 1; determining the abscissa of the first source pixel point as an abscissa of the third source pixel point, and determining a smaller value of the height value of the source image and a second numerical value as an ordinate of the third source pixel point, the second numerical value being the ordinate of the first source pixel point plus 1; determining the abscissa of the second source pixel point as an abscissa of the fourth source pixel point, and determining the ordinate of the third source pixel point as an ordinate of the fourth source pixel point; and forming the coordinates of the source pixel point corresponding to the to-be-processed pixel point in the source image based on the abscissa and the ordinate of the first source pixel point, the abscissa and the ordinate of the second source pixel point, the abscissa and the ordinate of the third source pixel point, and the abscissa and the ordinate of the fourth source pixel point.”
Claims 5-8 are dependent on claim 4 and are indicated as having the same allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not disclose or suggest in claim 9: “subtracting, from a value obtained by multiplying the abscissa of the to-be-processed pixel point by the transverse scaling coefficient, a value obtained by the abscissa of the first source pixel point shifted to the left by the first quantity of bits, to obtain a first difference, and shifting the first difference to the right by a second quantity of bits, to obtain the transverse fixed-point interpolation coefficient, the first quantity of bits and the second quantity of bits being determined based on the displacement value; and subtracting, from a value obtained by multiplying the ordinate of the to-be-processed pixel point by the longitudinal scaling coefficient, a value obtained by the ordinate of the first source pixel point shifted to the left by the first quantity of bits, to obtain a second difference, and shifting the second difference to the right by the second quantity of bits, to obtain the longitudinal fixed- point interpolation coefficient.”
Claims 14-17 are analogous to claims 4-6 and 9 and include the same allowable subject matter.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/Jonathan S Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights