DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
“A apparatus” should be “An apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17-21 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 2-6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 5, 7, 12-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garus et al (Garus, Patrick, et al. "Immersive video coding: Should geometry information be transmitted as depth maps?." IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 32.5 (2021): 3250-3264.).
RE claim 1, Garus teaches A method comprising:
obtaining a depth map of a scene, wherein the depth map comprises a plurality of depth values (abstract, Figs 2-3, page 3251 col 1, page 3254 col 1);
defining a plurality of cells in the depth map, wherein each cell of the plurality of cells corresponds to a portion of the depth map (Fig 5, page 3255 col 1);
identifying at least one depth regions in each of the plurality of the cells; determining at least one ranges of depth values for the at least one depth regions (Figs 6-7, page 3255 col 1); and
transmitting the depth map and the at least one ranges of depth values (Fig 2, page 3251 col 1, page 3253 col 2, page 3255 col 1).
RE claim 2, Garus teaches wherein defining the plurality of cells comprises dividing the depth map into a grid of cells (Fig 5, page 3255 col 1).
RE claim 3, Garus teaches further comprising transmitting a number for each cell of the plurality of cells, wherein each cell has the number of at least one ranges of depth values (Fig 5, page 3255 col 1 “For each block, the following features are extracted and transmitted: depth ranges, optimal depth estimation parameters, depth estimation skip flag and a partition flag,”).
RE claim 5, Garus teaches wherein identifying at least one depth regions is based on determining a depth smoothness between the plurality of depth values (Fig 5, page 3255 col 1 page 3256 col 1, wherein blocks/regions (depth candidates) are grouped/segmented based on depth smoothness/variation to assign the corresponding range value).
RE claim 7, Garus teaches A method comprising: receiving at least one images and at least one depth maps of a scene; receiving at least one ranges of depth values, wherein the at least one depth maps comprises a first depth map, wherein the first depth map comprises a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells comprise the at least one at least one depth maps comprises the at least one ranges of depth values, wherein each of the at least one ranges of depth values corresponds to at least one depth regions of a first depth map, wherein the at least one depth maps comprises a first depth map, wherein each cell of the plurality of cells corresponds to a portion of the first depth map; and processing the first depth map using the at least one ranges of depth values for each cell, together with at least one of the images, to synthesize an image at the target viewpoint (Abstract, Figs 2-7, page 3251 col 1, page 3253 col 2- page 3255 col 2 wherein the encoded transmitted depth map and range values, as set forth in the rejection of in claim 1, are received and processed to reconstruct the 3D scene at the decoder side.).
RE claim 12, Garus teaches further comprising receiving a number and shape for each cell of the plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells is in a grid of cells defined for each of the at least one depth maps, wherein rendering the depth regions comprises rendering the depth regions for each cell (Fig 2, page 3252 col 2).
RE claim 13, Garus teaches A computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig 2, page 3261 col 1 wherein the software is stored in a medium).
RE claim 15, Garus teaches A computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 7 (Fig 2, page 3261 col 1 wherein the software is stored in a medium).
Claim 16 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Garus teaches A apparatus comprising: a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit (Fig 2, page 3261 col 1 wherein the CPU comprises a processor circuit and a memory circuit).
Claims 17-18, 20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 2-3, 5 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 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al.
RE claim 4, Garus is silent Re: wherein 16 or less ranges of depth values are transmitted. However he teaches the number of blocks and associated range info can be reduced significantly to 88-95% in Fig 7, page 3251 col 1, page 3255 cols 1-2 depending on the block size and scene complexity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that wherein 16 or less ranges of depth values are transmitted can be equally performed as an obvious matter of system capability and trade off within quality and simplicity, further reducing the bandwidth requirement and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al, and further in view of Xu et al (US 20170285916 A1).
RE claim 6, Garus is silent RE further comprising: determining a mesh resolution based on the depth smoothness; and transmitting the mesh resolution.
However Xu teaches determining a mesh resolution based on the depth smoothness in [0025]. This can be equally applied in the encoder side and send as the additional information/geometry (page 3255 col 1) to assist reconstructing the geometry at the decode side.
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 Garus a system and method determining a mesh resolution based on the depth smoothness; and transmitting the mesh resolution, as set forth above applying Xu, to further reduce geometry with the varying resolution and assist reconstructing the geometry at the decode side and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 21 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al, and further in view of Miller et al (US 20130127855 A1).
RE claim 8, Garus teaches wherein rendering the depth regions comprises rendering the depth regions for each cell (Fig 2, page 3252 col 2).
Garus is silent RE in a back-to-front depth order.
However Miller teaches in [0061] in order to effectively render opaque objects behind transparent objects.
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 Garus a system and method rendering in a back-to-front depth order Miller, in order to effectively render opaque objects behind transparent objects and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al, and further in view of Taghavi et al (US 12327314 B1).
RE claim 9, Garus is silent RE wherein processing at least one of the depth maps comprises: selecting a mesh for each of the at least one range of depth values; applying the at least one ranges of depth values to the corresponding mesh; modifying the position of vertices in each mesh to fit within the corresponding range of depth values; and synthesizing the image at the target viewpoint using the images and the modified at least one meshes.
However Taghavi teaches in col 1 lines 53-col 2 lines 10 in order to allow render opaque objects behind transparent objects wherein triangle/polygon stretching or removing indicates modifying the vertex positions, utilizing a low resolution mesh and depth range (interval) information.
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 Garus a system and method wherein processing at least one of the depth maps comprises: selecting a mesh for each of the at least one range of depth values; applying the at least one ranges of depth values to the corresponding mesh; modifying the position of vertices in each mesh to fit within the corresponding range of depth values; and synthesizing the image at the target viewpoint using the images and the modified at least one meshes, as set forth above applying Taghavi, in order to allow render opaque objects behind transparent objects utilizing a low resolution mesh and the depth range information and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 11, Garus teaches wherein processing at least one of the depth maps comprises: warping the at least one depth maps to a target viewpoint; wherein synthesizing the image at the target viewpoint is based on using the at least one warped depth map (Fig 2, page 3252 col 2).
Garus is silent RE: generating a transparency map using the at least one warped depths maps; and modifying the transparency values in the transparency map based on the at least one ranges of depth values, synthesizing the image at the target viewpoint is based on using the at least one warped depth map and the transparency map.
However Taghavi teaches in Figs 3-5, 8-10, col 2 lines 32- 52, col 18 lines 25-65 etc wherein the updated transparency map is generated based on depth range information in order to improve render opaque objects behind transparent objects, utilizing a low resolution mesh and transparency layer corresponding to boundary (depth interval/range) information.
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 Garus a system and method generating a transparency map using the at least one warped depths maps; and modifying the transparency values in the transparency map based on the at least one ranges of depth values, synthesizing the image at the target viewpoint is based on using the at least one warped depth map and the transparency map, as set forth above applying Taghavi, in order to allow render opaque objects behind transparent objects and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus as modified by Taghavi, and further in view of Xu et al.
RE claim 10, Garus modified by Taghavi is silent RE further comprising obtaining a mesh resolution based on a depth smoothness of each of the at least one depth maps, wherein selecting a mesh for each range of depth values is based on the mesh resolution.
However Xu teaches determining a mesh resolution based on the depth smoothness in [0025]. This can be equally applied to effectively determine the variable mesh resolution and reconstructing the geometry at the decode side for rendering the object.
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 Garus modified by Taghavi a system and method obtaining a mesh resolution based on a depth smoothness of each of the at least one depth maps, wherein selecting a mesh for each range of depth values is based on the mesh resolution, as set forth above applying Xu, to effectively reduce geometry with the varying resolution and rendering with high quality and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
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 at (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
