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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Francois does not explicitly teach determine a second format for encoding the visual data, wherein the second format corresponds to a second color space having a second bit depth, wherein the second color space is different from the first color space, and wherein the second format is determined based on at least one of a sum of adjacent pixel error or a color conversion suitability factor.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “…the second format is determined based on at least one of a sum of adjacent pixel error or a color conversion suitability factor.” The term “color conversion suitability factor” can be interpreted as how well the pictures can be handle in a color space by the device.
Francois teaches the method is particularly adapted to process images having monochrome content with very high bit-depth. In other words, an advantage of the method is that it is possible to reuse an existing HEVC design adapted to handle 4:2:0, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 chroma format to encode high bit-depth content that could not be processed normally by such an existing HEVC design. [0016], [0045], [0073], [0103].
The HEVC standard has been primarily designed to handle only 8 bit-depth content, most of the intermediate computations involved in the transform/inverse transform processes being achieved using 16-bit integer registers. The Range Extension of HEVC enables to support more than 8-bits but when reaching more than 12 bits, it is no more possible to guaranty that internal computations can be achieved using 16-bit integer registers. [0224].
According to a particular embodiment, the samples of the input picture are split into two sub-pictures of lower bit-depth. The sub-pictures are then packed in an adequate format to obtain new pictures of more limited bit-depth that can be efficiently coded using existing HEVC coding tools. At the decoder end, the obtained decoded packed pictures of more limited bit-depth are unpacked to re-generate a picture of the original bit-depth. This applies, in particular, to medical content generally represented as 16-bits monochrome (4:0:0 color format) pictures or videos. A first embodiment is directed to monochrome pictures of bit-depth B that are converted into pairs of monochrome sub-pictures that are packed together into a color format to form single color pictures whose components are of lower bit-depth than B. At the decoder end, the components of the decoded color pictures are re-arranged and merged into a reconstructed monochrome picture. [0227] – [0228]. See also [0231] – [0245]. In other words, monochrome pictures of bit-depth B are converted into color pictures whose components are of lower bit-depth than B, which is more suitable to be handled by the HEVC standards.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francois et al. (US 2015/0010068 A1).
Consider claim 1, Francois teaches at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon ([0070], [0129] and claim 19), wherein the instructions, when executed on processing circuitry ([0070], [0129] and claim 19), cause the processing circuitry to: receive visual data in a first format, wherein the first format corresponds to a first color space having a first bit depth, wherein the visual data is represented in the first color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]); determine a second format for encoding the visual data, wherein the second format corresponds to a second color space having a second bit depth, wherein the second color space is different from the first color space, and wherein the second format is determined based on at least one of a sum of adjacent pixel error or a color conversion suitability factor (The term “color conversion suitability factor” can be interpreted as how well the pictures can be handle in a color space by the device.
Francois teaches the method is particularly adapted to process images having monochrome content with very high bit-depth. In other words, an advantage of the method is that it is possible to reuse an existing HEVC design adapted to handle 4:2:0, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 chroma format to encode high bit-depth content that could not be processed normally by such an existing HEVC design. [0016], [0045], [0073], [0103].
The HEVC standard has been primarily designed to handle only 8 bit-depth content, most of the intermediate computations involved in the transform/inverse transform processes being achieved using 16-bit integer registers. The Range Extension of HEVC enables to support more than 8-bits but when reaching more than 12 bits, it is no more possible to guaranty that internal computations can be achieved using 16-bit integer registers. [0224].
According to a particular embodiment, the samples of the input picture are split into two sub-pictures of lower bit-depth. The sub-pictures are then packed in an adequate format to obtain new pictures of more limited bit-depth that can be efficiently coded using existing HEVC coding tools. At the decoder end, the obtained decoded packed pictures of more limited bit-depth are unpacked to re-generate a picture of the original bit-depth. This applies, in particular, to medical content generally represented as 16-bits monochrome (4:0:0 color format) pictures or videos. A first embodiment is directed to monochrome pictures of bit-depth B that are converted into pairs of monochrome sub-pictures that are packed together into a color format to form single color pictures whose components are of lower bit-depth than B. At the decoder end, the components of the decoded color pictures are re-arranged and merged into a reconstructed monochrome picture. [0227] – [0228]. See also [0231] – [0245]. In other words, monochrome pictures of bit-depth B are converted into color pictures whose components are of lower bit-depth than B, which is more suitable to be handled by the HEVC standards); rearrange the visual data from the first format into a second format, wherein the second format corresponds to a second color space having a second bit depth, wherein the second color space is different from the first color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]), and wherein the rearranged visual data in the second format is represented in the first color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]); and encode the rearranged visual data in the second format using a codec for the second color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]), wherein the rearranged visual data is encoded into encoded visual data (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]).
Consider claim 2, Francois teaches the visual data is: an image; a video frame; or a tile of an image or a video frame ([0143] – [0144]).
Consider claim 3, Francois teaches the first color space is a monochrome color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]); and the second color space is a luminance-chrominance color space or a red-green-blue (RGB) color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]).
Consider claim 4, Francois teaches the second color space is the luminance-chrominance color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]), wherein the luminance-chrominance color space is a YCbCr color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266], [0230] – [0231]); the first bit depth is at least 16 bits per pixel ([0226] – [0227], [0280]).and the second bit depth is at least 8 bits per color component ([0224], [0236] – [0242], [0276], [0281] – [0282]).
Consider claim 5, Francois teaches the first color space is a monochrome color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]); the second color space is a luminance-chrominance color space (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]); and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to rearrange the visual data from the first format into the second format further cause the processing circuitry to: partition bits of pixel values in a monochrome channel of the first format into a luma channel, a blue chroma channel, and a red chroma channel of the second format (Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266], [0230] – [0231]).
Consider claim 7, Francois teaches the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to determine the second format for encoding the visual data (The term “color conversion suitability factor” can be interpreted as how well the pictures can be handle in a color space by the device.
Francois teaches the method is particularly adapted to process images having monochrome content with very high bit-depth. In other words, an advantage of the method is that it is possible to reuse an existing HEVC design adapted to handle 4:2:0, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 chroma format to encode high bit-depth content that could not be processed normally by such an existing HEVC design. [0016], [0045], [0073], [0103].
The HEVC standard has been primarily designed to handle only 8 bit-depth content, most of the intermediate computations involved in the transform/inverse transform processes being achieved using 16-bit integer registers. The Range Extension of HEVC enables to support more than 8-bits but when reaching more than 12 bits, it is no more possible to guaranty that internal computations can be achieved using 16-bit integer registers. [0224].
According to a particular embodiment, the samples of the input picture are split into two sub-pictures of lower bit-depth. The sub-pictures are then packed in an adequate format to obtain new pictures of more limited bit-depth that can be efficiently coded using existing HEVC coding tools. At the decoder end, the obtained decoded packed pictures of more limited bit-depth are unpacked to re-generate a picture of the original bit-depth. This applies, in particular, to medical content generally represented as 16-bits monochrome (4:0:0 color format) pictures or videos. A first embodiment is directed to monochrome pictures of bit-depth B that are converted into pairs of monochrome sub-pictures that are packed together into a color format to form single color pictures whose components are of lower bit-depth than B. At the decoder end, the components of the decoded color pictures are re-arranged and merged into a reconstructed monochrome picture. [0227] – [0228]. See also [0231] – [0245]. In other words, monochrome pictures of bit-depth B are converted into color pictures whose components are of lower bit-depth than B, which is more suitable to be handled by the HEVC standards. See also Fig. 5a, Fig. 8a, and Fig. 9a; [0227] – [0228], [0236] – [0242], [0253] – [0255], [0265] – [0266]) further cause the processing circuitry to: compute one or more metrics associated with the visual data in the first format, wherein the one or more metrics include at least one of a sum of adjacent pixel error or a color conversion suitability factor ([0259] – [0271]); and select the second format for encoding the visual data, wherein the second format is selected from a plurality of color space formats based on the one or more metrics ([0259] – [0271]).
Consider claim 8, Francois teaches the encoded visual data includes metadata indicating a source format and a target format of the visual data, wherein the source format is the first format and the target format is the second format ([0148] – [0152]).
Consider claim 10, Francois teaches the visual data is medical image data ([0009], [0226] – [0227]).
Consider claim 11, Francois teaches the codec is based on H.264, H.265, AV1, VP9, JPEG, or 7-Zip ([0146] and [0154]).
Consider claim 12, claim 12 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 1. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 13, claim 13 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 3. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 14, claim 14 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 5. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 16, claim 16 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 17, claim 17 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 18, claim 18 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 19, claim 19 recites the method embedded in the storage medium recited in claim 1. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 20, claim 20 recites the method embedded in the storage medium recited in claim 5. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois et al. (US 2015/0010068 A1) in view of Gadgil et al. (US 2024/0283975 A1).
Consider claim 6, Francois teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but does not explicitly teach pixels of the rearranged visual data in the second format are rotated relative to pixels of the visual data in the first format.
Gadgil teaches pixels of the rearranged visual data in the second format are rotated relative to pixels of the visual data in the first format ([0051] – [0059], [0064] – [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of rotating pixels of the rearranged visual data because such incorporation would improve the HDR viewing experience. [0010].
Consider claim 15, claim 15 recites the device that executes the processing recited in claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois et al. (US 2015/0010068 A1) in view of Tourapis et al. (US 2021/0006833 A1).
Consider claim 9, Francois teaches all the limitations in claim 8 but does not explicitly teach the encoded visual data further includes an annotated regions supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the annotated regions SEI message includes the metadata.
Tourapis teaches the encoded visual data further includes an annotated regions supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the annotated regions SEI message includes the metadata ([0483]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of including an annotated regions SEI message because such incorporation would enable a signaling mechanism to identify spatial areas or regions of interests. [0483].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/TAT C CHIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486