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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on 04/03/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended, claim 3 has been previously canceled. Claims 1-2, and 4-21 are pending for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and corresponding system and computer-implemented method claims 11 and 18, respectively, are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim. However, these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 03, 2026, has been entered and made of record.
Applicant's arguments, as set forth in the Remarks on pages 7-9, filed on April 03, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 under 35 USC § 103 over GADGIL NEERAJ J (WO-2022032010-A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection based on Gadgil has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of He et al. (US-2023/0179805-A1). He discloses generating film grain data based on resolution-related scaling information. In particular, He teaches resolution-adaptive film grain synthesis, where film grain synthesis parameters, including block size, are determined based on the resolution of the picture (¶[0094]). For example , He discloses adjusting film grain synthesis block height and width depending on the picture height and width or total number of pixel.
Point A
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach “generating film grain noise data based on a scaling transform used to scale the resolution of the decoded video data.” and "after scaling the resolution of the decoded video data, apply the film grain noise data to the scaled video data," as recited by amended claim 1.
As to Point A
Applicant’s prior argument was persuasive with respect to the earlier rejection based on Gadgil. However, the newly applied reference addresses the amended limitation.
He et al. (US 2023/0179805 A1) discloses generating film grain noise data based on resolution-related scaling information. In particular, He teaches resolution-adaptive film grain synthesis, where film grain synthesis parameters, including block size, are determined based on the resolution of the picture (¶[0094]; see also ¶[0085], ¶[0103]). For example, He discloses adjusting film grain synthesis block height and width depending on picture height and width or total number of pixels. Thus, He teaches generating film grain noise data based on scaling-related information associated with the resolution of the video data.
Accordingly, the newly applied reference addresses the amended limitation of claim 1.
Furthermore, additional references, such as WO 2013/011485 A2, describe adjusting film grain characteristics, including frequency-related properties, in accordance with scaling and resolution variations of the video signal, which is consistent with the subject matter recited in dependent claim 4.
In view of the foregoing, dependent claim 4 recites a further narrowing feature relative to claim 1, and Applicant may wish to consider incorporating that limitation into independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 2, 7-9, 14-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balram et al. (US-9100647-B1) hereinafter “Balram” in view of He et al. (US-2023/0179805-A1) hereinafter “He”.
Regarding claim 1 Balram-He
Balram discloses 1. (Currently Amended) A computing device, comprising:
at least one circuit (Balram, Fig. 1, “Video processing circuitry 120”, configured to:
prior to applying film grain noise data to decoded video data, scale a resolution of (Balram, See Fig. 5, Module 540 “Image scaling, Module 520 “Down sampling”.” and, Module 550 “upsampling” Col. 6 lines 40-48 “…Module 540 can be used to scale image frames within the video signal and provide frame rate conversion. Module 550 can be used to perform … performing up-sampling duties.” decoded video data; (Balram, Fig. 1, 110 “Digital Video Source” Col. 3 lines 6-8 “The decoded digital video stream (in digital format) is input to video processing circuitry 120)
. . .; and
after scaling the resolution of the decoded video data, (Col. 6, lines 45-46 “Module 540 can be used to scale image frames within the video signal…” See that Fig. 5, 540 “Image Scaling”
apply the film grain noise data to the scaled video data. (See Fig. 5, 560 “Film grain addition” Col. 6 lines 47-49 “Film grain generation can be performed in Module 560 such that the film grain is added to the video signal being processed.”).
Balram does not explicitly disclose
generate film grain noise data based on a scaling transform used to scale the resolution of the decoded video data
However, in the same field of endeavor He discloses more explicitly the following:
generate film grain noise data based on a scaling transform used to scale the resolution of the decoded video data (He, ¶[0094], ¶[0095],¶[0103] ¶[0085]) teaches generating film grain data based on scaling-related information associated with the resolution of the decoded video data and parameters included with encoded video data,
Paragraph [0094] “…a resolution adaptive film grain synthesis block size.” determined based on picture resolution. Paragraph [0095] further teaches that the film grain synthesis parameters, including block size, vary depending on the overall picture resolution (e.g.,1920x1080, 4K). Paragraph [0103] provides additional examples where film grain synthesis parameters are adjusted according to resolution.
Additionally, paragraph [0085] teaches that film grain characteristics are provided via SEI messes included with encoded video data and used during decoding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Balram with He to incorporate He’s resolution-adaptive film grain generation into Balram’s system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve the video quality by adapting film grain characteristics based on resolution, as taught by He ¶[0094]),thereby enhancing the overall appearance of the decoded video.
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 1, applies equally as well to claims 2, 7-9, 14-16, and 20-21.
Regarding claim 2 Balram-He
Balram-He discloses 2. (Previously Presented) The computing device of claim 1,
wherein the at least one circuit (See Fig. 5, 560 “Film grain addition”) is further configured to:
receive the encoded video data and the one or more parameters. (He, [0140] “The destination device may receive the encoded video data to be decoded…”[0031] “A film grain characteristics (FGC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message is specified … to provide a decoder with a parameterized model for film grain synthesis…the decoder may use the FGC SEI message…”)
Regarding claim 21 Balram-He
Balram-He disclose 21. (Previously Presented) The computing device of claim 2,
wherein the one or more parameters are received in metadata. (He”[0031] “A film grain characteristics (FGC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message is specified … to provide a decoder with a parameterized model for film grain synthesis. … the decoder may use the FGC SEI message…”)
Regarding claim 3
Canceled
Regarding claim 7 Balram-He
Balram-He discloses 7. (Previously Presented) The computing device of claim 1,
wherein the at least one circuit is further (Balram, Fig. 1, “Film grain generator 130” the film grain noise application circuitry is configured to:
generate decimated film grain noise data by decimating the film grain noise data in response to downscaling of the decoded video data; (Balram, Col. 4, lines 44-46 “…HPF 220 receives a white noise input and filters out some of the low-frequencies components,….”i.e., thereby disseminating the grain noise data in response to downscaling ) and
apply the decimated film grain noise data to the scaled video data. (Balram, See Fig. 5, 560 “Film grain addition” Col. 6 lines 47-49 “Film grain generation can be performed in Module 560 such that the film grain is added to the video signal being processed.”)
Regarding claim 8 Balram-He
Balram-He discloses 8. (Previously Presented) The computing device of claim 7,
wherein the at least one circuit is further (Balram, Fig. 1, “Film grain generator 130” Col. 3. lines 48-49 “Film grain generator 130 includes white noise generator 210, two-dimensional high pass filter 220, ….”) configured to decimate the film grain noise data by at least one of:
down sampling the film grain noise data with a two-dimensional filter; or fitting the film grain noise data to a curve. (Balram, Col. 4, lines 41-46 “The purpose of HPF 220 is merely to filter out some of the low-frequency (i.e., larger) pieces of film grain which can be less visually pleasing than the smaller pieces. Because HPF 220 receives a white noise input and filters out some of the lower frequencies,…” i.e., downsampling the film grain noise data using the two-domination high-pass filter 220, which removes low-frequency (i.e., larger) components of the grain signal consistent with dissemination )
Regarding claim 9-14-15
A system comprising: at least one physical processor is a common feature in the claims 9, 14, and 15, and each of these claims lists all the same elements as 1, 7, and 8 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1,7, and 8 applies equally as well to claims 9, 14, and 15 respectively. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of “A system comprising: at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor, cause the at least one physical processor to:” (Balram, Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-4 “FIG. 6A, the present invention can be implemented in a hard disk drive 600. The present invention may be implemented as part of the signal processing and/or control circuits, which are generally identified in FIG. 6A at 602. In some implementations, the signal processing and/or control circuit 602 and/or other circuits (not shown) in the HDD 600 may process data, perform coding and/or encryption, perform calculations, and/or format data that is output to and/or received from a magnetic storage medium 606. See that fig. 6A”)
Regarding claim 16, 17 and 20
A computer-implemented method is a common feature in the claims 16, 17, and 20, and each of these claims lists the same elements of claims 1, 10, and 7 respectively, but in method form rather than computing device. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1,10, and 7 applies equally as well to claims 16, 17, and 20 respectively. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a least one processor (Balram, Col. 9 lines 44-47 , “The disclosed circuits, components, and methods can be implemented using means such as digital circuitry, analog circuitry, and/or a processor architecture with programmable instructions.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balram-He in view of (WO-2023122039-A1) Kadu H (Kadu) hereinafter “Kadu”
Regarding claim 5 Balram-He-Kadu
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Balram-He discloses the invention substantially as claimed. But Balram-He does not explicitly disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the at least one circuit is further configured to: generate interpolated film grain noise data by interpolating the film grain noise data in response to upscaling of the decoded video data; and apply the interpolated film grain noise data to the scaled video data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kadu discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the film grain noise application circuitry is configured to: generate interpolated film grain noise data by interpolating the film grain noise data in response to upscaling of the decoded video data; (Kadu, “The processor: accesses measured viewing parameters (312) for the target display; based on the measured viewing parameters, interpolates (340) parameters from the two or more sets of input film grain information to generate output film grain parameters; generates output film noise based at least on the output film grain parameters; decodes the input video bitstream to generate decoded video pictures; and blends (320) the output film noise with the decoded video pictures to generate output video pictures on the target display and apply the interpolated film grain noise data to the scaled video data ( Kadu [0057]. “The user/decoder can choose the category and apply interpolation techniques to generate the FG model that fits best its actual viewing condition.” [0064] “applies the interpolated parameters to perform film-grain synthesis and blending.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Balram with Kadu to create the system of Balram as outlined above in order to have adjusts one or more of the input film grain parameters based on the measured viewing parameters and the reference viewing parameters to generate adjusted film grain parameters as suggested by Kadu. The reasoning being is that “to generate updated film-grain parameters (220) to be used for film-grain synthesis and blending.” (Kadu, [0035]).
Regarding claim 10 Balram-He-Kadu
Balram-He discloses 10. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 9,
wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one physical processor to generate the film grain noise data and apply the film grain noise data to the scaled video data at least in part by: (Balram, Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-4 “FIG. 6A, the present invention can be implemented in a hard disk drive 600. The present invention may be implemented as part of the signal processing and/or control circuits, which are generally identified in FIG. 6A at 602. In some implementations, the signal processing and/or control circuit 602 and/or other circuits (not shown) in the HDD 600 may process data, perform coding and/or encryption, perform calculations, and/or format data that is output to and/or received from a magnetic storage medium 606. See that fig. 6A”)
receiving the encoded video data and the one or more parameters (He, [0140] “The destination device may receive the encoded video data to be decoded…”[0031] “A film grain characteristics (FGC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message is specified … to provide a decoder with a parameterized model for film grain synthesis…the decoder may use the FGC SEI message…”). . .; and
applying the adjusted film grain noise data to the scaled video data. (See Fig. 5, 560 “Film grain addition” Col. 6 lines 47-49 “Film grain generation can be performed in Module 560 such that the film grain is added to the video signal being processed.”).
Balram-He does not explicitly disclose
generating adjusted film grain noise data based on a scaling factor used to generate the scaled video data and the one or more parameters; and applying the adjusted film grain noise data to the scaled video data.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kadu discloses more explicitly the following:
generating adjusted film grain noise data based on a scaling factor used to generate the scaled video data and the one or more parameters; and applying the adjusted film grain noise data to the scaled video data. ; (Kadu, [0019] “The processor: parses the input film grain information to generate input film grain parameters (301) for generating film noise for a target display; accesses reference viewing parameters for a reference display; adjusts (315) one or more of the input film grain parameters based on the measured viewing parameters and the reference viewing parameters to generate adjusted film grain parameters;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Balram with Kadu to create the system of Balram as outlined above in order to have adjusts one or more of the input film grain parameters based on the measured viewing parameters and the reference viewing parameters to generate adjusted film grain parameters as suggested by Kadu. The reasoning being is that “to generate updated film-grain parameters (220) to be used for film-grain synthesis and blending.” (Kadu, 0035).
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 10, applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balram-He-Kadu and further in view of (US- 20240323453-A1), Radosavljevic et al (Radosavljevic).
Regarding claim 6 Balram-He-Kadu-Radosavljevic
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Balram-He-Kadu discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 5. However, Balram-He-Kadu does not explicitly disclose the computing device of claim 6, wherein the at least one circuit is further configured to interpolate the film grain noise data by at least one of: up sampling the film grain noise data with a two-dimensional filter; or fitting the film grain noise data to a curve.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Radosavljevic discloses the computing device of claim 5, wherein the film grain noise application circuitry is configured to interpolate the film grain noise data by at least one of: up sampling the film grain noise data with a two-dimensional filter; or fitting the film grain noise data to a curve. (Radosavljevic, [0018] “FIG. 3 illustrates a piece wise constant scaling function for film grain in a video coding/decoding framework.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings Balram with Radosavljevic to
to create the system of Balram-Radosavljevic as outlined above in order to interpolate the film grain noise data by at least one of: up sampling the film grain noise data with a two-dimensional filter; or fitting the film grain noise data to a curve as suggested by Radosavljevic.
The reasoning is that “the film grain analysis and parameter estimation advantageously provide to the synthesis part information about the film grain so the synthesizer can produce film grain samples that simulate the appearance of the original film grain in the decoder.” (Radosavljevic, [0071])
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 6, applies equally as well to claim 13.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MCCARTHY et al. US-20240179330-A1
ROSSATO LUCA WO-2013011495-A
Conclusion.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Fr 8:30 am to 5:30 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2481 /WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights