DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 13-16, 18-21, 23-24, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakshmikantha et al (US 20210136397 A1).
RE claim 1, Lakshmikantha teaches An apparatus for graphics processing, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Fig 1, [0032]-[0035]) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory ([0035]), the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain at least one image in a set of images corresponding to a scene associated with the graphics processing ([0035], [0040], [0085]);
perform a non-linear foveated compression process on the at least one image, wherein the non-linear foveated compression process corresponds to a continuous non-linear compression for a portion of the at least one image (Figs 3#312, 4, 14, [0050], [0052], [0054] wherein compression sampling or downscaling rate as per the foveation transfer function in FIGS. 4A and 4B, ”Outside the foveal region, the pixels are increasingly downscaled towards the peripheral xy coordinates” etc indicate continuous non-linear compression for the portions. ); and
transmit the at least one image after the non-linear foveated compression process, such that the transmitted at least one image corresponds to at least one compressed image (Figs 3, 14#1410, [0051] ).
RE claim 3, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated compression process corresponds to at least one of: (i) a first continuous non-linear compression for one or more first portions of the at least one image, or (ii) a second continuous linear compression for one or more second portions of the at least one image (Figs 4A-B, [0052], [0054]).
RE claim 4, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated compression process corresponds to at least one of: (i) a first continuous non-linear compression for a first portion of the at least one image, (ii) a second continuous linear compression for a second portion of the at least one image, or (iii) a third continuous non-linear compression for a third portion of the at least one image (Figs 4A-B, [0052], [0054]).
RE claim 5, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated compression process corresponds to at least one of: (i) a first continuous linear compression for a first portion of the at least one image, (ii) a second continuous non-linear compression for a second portion of the at least one image, or (iii) a third continuous linear compression for a third portion of the at least one image (Figs 4A-B, [0052], [0054]).
RE claim 6, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: encode the at least one image after the non-linear foveated compression process is performed and before the at least one image is transmitted (Figs 3, 14#1408, [0051], [0091] ).
RE claim 9, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated compression process corresponds to the continuous non-linear compression for an entirety of the at least one image, such that the portion of the at least one image is equal to the entirety of the at least one image ([0052]).
RE claim 10, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein to perform the non-linear foveated compression process on the at least one image, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a non-linear foveated scaling process on the at least one image ([0052]).
RE claim 13, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated compression process reduces an amount of data for the at least one image, wherein the data is to be stored in at least one of a memory, a buffer, or an eye buffer (Figs 3, 5, [0035], [0053]).
RE claim 14, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein to obtain the at least one image, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the at least one image from at least one of a camera, at least one component in a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a video component (Fig 3, [0031], [0051], [0085] “a scene or rendered frame” ).
RE claim 15, Lakshmikantha teaches further comprising at least one of an antenna or a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one image is transmitted to a display processing unit (DPU) or a display driver integrated circuit (DDIC) (Fig 3, [0032], [0033], [0035]).
RE claim 16, Lakshmikantha teaches An apparatus for graphics processing, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Fig 1, [0032]-[0035]) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory ([0035]), the at least one processor is configured to: obtain at least one compressed image in a scene associated with the graphics processing, wherein the at least one compressed image is associated with a non-linear foveated compression process; perform a non-linear foveated decompression process on the at least one compressed image, such that the at least one compressed image corresponds to at least one image, wherein the non-linear foveated decompression process corresponds to a continuous non-linear decompression for a portion of the at least one image (Figs 3, 5, 15, [0035], [0041], [0051]-[0053]); and transmit the at least one image after the non-linear foveated decompression process (Figs 5, 9-10, [0074]-[0075] wherein the decompressed output is transmitted to display and/or another device/processor).
RE claim 18, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated decompression process corresponds to at least one of: (i) a first continuous non-linear decompression for one or more first portions of the at least one image, or (ii) a second continuous linear decompression for one or more second portions of the at least one image (Figs 3-5, 15, [0035], [0041], [0051]-[0053]).
RE claim 19, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated decompression process corresponds to at least one of: (i) a first continuous non-linear decompression for a first portion of the at least one image, (ii) a second continuous linear decompression for a second portion of the at least one image, or (iii) a third continuous non-linear decompression for a third portion of the at least one image(Figs 3-5, 15, [0035], [0041], [0051]-[0053]).
RE claim 20, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated decompression process corresponds to at least one of: (i) a first continuous linear decompression for a first portion of the at least one image, (ii) a second continuous non-linear decompression for a second portion of the at least one image, or (iii) a third continuous linear decompression for a third portion of the at least one image (Figs 3-5, 15, [0035], [0041], [0051]-[0053]).
RE claim 21, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: decode the at least one compressed image after the at least one compressed image is obtained and before the non-linear foveated decompression process is performed (Figs 3, 9, [0051]).
RE claim 23, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated decompression process corresponds to the continuous non-linear decompression for an entirety of the at least one image, such that the portion of the at least one image is equal to the entirety of the at least one image ([0051]-[0053]).
RE claim 24, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein to perform the non-linear foveated decompression process on the at least one image, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a non-linear foveated scaling process on the at least one image ([0051]-[0053]).
RE claim 27, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein to obtain the at least one compressed image, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the at least one compressed image from a graphics processing unit (GPU) ([0087], [0092]-[0093]).
RE claim 28, Lakshmikantha teaches further comprising at least one of an antenna or a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor ([0032]), wherein the at least one image is transmitted to a display panel or a memory (Figs 5, 8, 10, [0074]-[0075] wherein the decompressed output is transmitted to display or display buffer, [0033]-[0035] ).
Claims 29-30 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1 and 16 as methods and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 2, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmikantha, and further in view of Bastani et al (US 20210166341 A1).
RE claim 2, Lakshmikantha is silent RE: wherein the portion of the at least one image is within a threshold distance from one or more edges of the at least one image. However Bastani teaches in [0055] in order to define a peripheral region of the FOV for foveated rendering.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Lakshmikantha a system and method wherein the portion of the at least one image is within a threshold distance from one or more edges of the at least one image, as suggested by Bastani, in order to define the peripheral/outer region for the foveated compression/downscale and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 17 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmikantha, and further in view of Sasaki et al (US 20190164354 A1).
RE claim 7, Lakshmikantha is silent RE: wherein to perform the non-linear foveated compression process on the at least one image, the at least one processor is configured to: filter data associated with the at least one image, wherein the filtered data is associated with a reduced amount of aliasing compared to non-filtered data associated with the at least one image.
However Sasaki teaches filter data associated with the at least one image, wherein the filtered data is associated with a reduced amount of aliasing compared to non-filtered data associated with the at least one image in [0178], [0191] in order to reduce aliasing and flickering in the image.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Lakshmikantha a system and method wherein to perform the non-linear foveated compression process on the at least one image, the at least one processor is configured to: filter data associated with the at least one image, wherein the filtered data is associated with a reduced amount of aliasing compared to non-filtered data associated with the at least one image, by applying the filtering as suggested by Sasaki, in order to reduce aliasing and flickering in the image and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 8, Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated compression process is performed during a time warp process or a composition process ([0070], [0073]).
Lakshmikantha is silent RE: wherein the non-linear foveated compression process is associated with an anisotropic filtering process or a trilinear filtering process with one or more mipmaps, wherein the anisotropic filtering process or the trilinear filtering process is associated with a reduced amount of under-sampling or flickering artifacts.
However Sasaki teaches performing a trilinear filtering process with one or more mipmaps, wherein the anisotropic filtering process or the trilinear filtering process is associated with a reduced amount of under-sampling or flickering artifacts in [0097], [0191] in order to reduce flickering in the image.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Lakshmikantha a system and method wherein the non-linear foveated compression process is associated with an anisotropic filtering process or a trilinear filtering process with one or more mipmaps, wherein the anisotropic filtering process or the trilinear filtering process is associated with a reduced amount of under-sampling or flickering artifacts, by applying the trilinear filtering as suggested by Sasaki, in order to reduce flickering in the image and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 22 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Lakshmikantha teaches wherein the non-linear foveated decompression process is performed during a time warp process or a composition process ([0075]).
Claims 11-12, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmikantha, and further in view of Andrivon et al (US 20220155596 A1).
RE claim 11, Lakshmikantha is silent RE: wherein the non-linear foveated compression process is associated with a lens distortion correction (LDC) process or an anamorphic scaling process.
However Andrivon teaches in Fig 10, [0056]-[0057] in order to produce distortion free image.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Lakshmikantha a system and method wherein the non-linear foveated compression process is associated with a lens distortion correction (LDC) process or an anamorphic scaling process, as suggested by Andrivon, in order to produce distortion free image and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 12, Lakshmikantha as modified by Andrivon teaches wherein the LDC process is associated with at least one lens, wherein the at least one lens is associated with an uneven image quality or an uneven pixel quality (Andrivon Fig 10, [0056]-[0057]).
Claims 25-26 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 11-12 and therefore rejected under the same rationale, wherein the LDC can equally be applied in the decompression to generate appropriate distortion free display image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
