Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 05/06/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application 18278335 filed on 08/22/2023.
Priority # Filling Data Country
21305227.7 2021-02-25 EP
21305578.3 2021-05-05 EP
Response to Amendment
5. The amendment filed on 05/06/2025, Claims 32, 38, 41, and 46 have been amended. Claim 47 has been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer. New claims 50-52 have been added, Claims 32-46, 48, 49, and 50-52 are pending.
5. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/06/2025, pages 6-7 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
The applicant has amended claims properly; therefore, the 112(b) rejection in the non-final rejection 02/12/2025 is withdrawn. However, new ground of rejection is found and presented in the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(d)(b)
The applicant has canceled claim 47; therefore, the 112(d)(b) rejection for claim 47 in the non-final rejection 02/12/2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
The applicant has canceled claim 47; therefore, the 101 rejection for claim 47 in the non-final rejection 02/12/2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been fully considered.
1.1 Basically, the applicant argued that “Zhang is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Zhang aims to acquire lesion information and provides a method for acquiring lesion information (including: acquiring ultrasound images; based on the ultrasound image, using a lesion prediction model to predict a lesion area and a lesion type in the ultrasound image; using the predicted lesion area to determine a first target lesion area corresponding to the predicted lesion area; a first target lesion category corresponding to the predicted lesion category is acquired; wherein the first target lesion region and the first target lesion category are lesion information of the ultrasound image. Also, when no lesion is found, there is no classification). Zhang would not have commended itself to an inventor's attention in video compression -— in fact, the ultrasound images from Zhang are not images acquired by a video camera to produce video content and are not appropriate for video compression. So even if, for the sake of argument, Zhang was analogous art, there is no permissible reason to combine it with Luo” (Remark, page 6-7).
The arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant also argued that: “There is no disclosure in Luo para. [0090] of a non-separable filter. Moreover, Luo para. [0110] discloses the fixed-phase interpolation filter can include a fixed-phase horizontal interpolation filter and a fixed-phase vertical interpolation filter, thus Luo discloses a separable filter”;
however, paragraph [0110] is just one example; Luo discloses a non-separable filter in para. [0090], since, as state by Luo: “a phase of the interpolation filter can be different row-by-row and/or column-by-column. How frequently a phase of the interpolation filter changes for each sample position within a given block to be predicted depends on a number of factors, including the sub-pel precision of the resampling filters (e.g., ⅛-pel vs. 1/16-pel vs. 1/32-pel), the scaling ratio in each dimension (e.g., 2:1 or 1.5:1 or 3:1, etc), the block size, and the like”; since the phase of the filter changes for each sample position, it cannot be separated as a horizontal filter and a vertical filter; the filter works an integrated filter for each sample position since it cannot be split into such row and column operations and needs to be applied directly in its 2D form. Therefore, Luo discloses of a non-separable filter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 38 and its dependent claim 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 38, it recites limitations of “pixels” in “classifying pixels of the at least one part of the first picture” However, it is not clear if the pixels are all the pixels of the at least one part of the first picture or just some pixels of the at least one part of the first picture; then it recites limitations of “one neighboring pixel ” in “and determining a class index for the sub-pixel position from at least one class index associated to at least one neighboring pixel in the at least one part of the first picture”; However, it is not clear if the neighboring pixel is a neighboring pixel of all the pixels of the at least one part of the first picture or just some pixels of the at least one part of the first picture?. If the neighboring pixel is also in the at least one part of the first picture, how can it be a neighboring pixel of itself?
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claim 39 are unclear.
8. Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 46, it recites limitations of “pixels” in “classifying pixels of the at least one part of the first picture” However, it is not clear if the pixels are all the pixels of the at least one part of the first picture or just some pixels of the at least one part of the first picture; then it recites limitations of “one neighboring pixel ” in “and determining a class index for the sub-pixel position from at least one class index associated to at least one neighboring pixel in the at least one part of the first picture”; However, it is not clear if the neighboring pixel is a neighboring pixel of all the pixels of the at least one part of the first picture or just some pixels of the at least one part of the first picture?. If the neighboring pixel is also in the at least one part of the first picture, how can it be a neighboring pixel of itself?
Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
9. Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 51, it recites limitations of “pixels” in “classifying pixels of the at least one part of the first picture” However, it is not clear if the pixels are all the pixels of the at least one part of the first picture or just some pixels of the at least one part of the first picture; then it recites limitations of “one neighboring pixel ” in “and determining a class index for the sub-pixel position from at least one class index associated to at least one neighboring pixel in the at least one part of the first picture”; However, it is not clear if the neighboring pixel is a neighboring pixel of all the pixels of the at least one part of the first picture or just some pixels of the at least one part of the first picture?. If the neighboring pixel is also in the at least one part of the first picture, how can it be a neighboring pixel of itself? Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 32-37, 41-45, 48-50 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (US 20210044799) and in view of KADONO (WO 9900985) ) and further in view of WU et al. (WO 2020069655).
Regarding claim 32, LUO teaches a method (fig. 3B) comprising:
decode a first picture (as shown in fig. 3B; paragraph 0012, … FIG. 3B illustrates a schematic diagram of another exemplary decoding process of a hybrid video coding system),
resampling at least one part of the first picture to at least one part of a second picture (fig. 11, 1104; the resampled reference picture is resampling at least one part of the first picture (reference) to at least one part of a second picture (current picture); paragraph 0110, … the resampled reference picture can be one of the pictures in the DPB (e.g., first reference picture 504, second reference picture 506, or third reference picture 508)), wherein resampling the at least one part of the first picture comprises, for at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture, selecting a resampling filter (fig. 11, 1104, fixed-phase interpolation filter is a resampling filter) responsive to a sub-pixel position in the at least one part of the first picture (fig. 11, 1104/1106; paragraph 0110, … The resampled reference picture can be one of the pictures in the DPB (e.g., first reference picture 504, second reference picture 506, or third reference picture 508). The fixed-phase interpolation filter can include a fixed-phase horizontal interpolation filter and a fixed-phase vertical interpolation filter. A phase of the fixed-phase interpolation filter can be a sub-pixel position of a motion vector of the block, and the phase of the fixed-phase interpolation filter includes a horizontal phase and a vertical phase).
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture .
KADONO discloses of selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture (page 1, … proper downsampling can be selected in accordance with the type of image, still image or dynamic image, so that the image quality deterioration caused by the encoding accompagnied by the downsampling can be avoided)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture as a modification to the method for the benefit of that guarantee the image quality (page 1).
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture.
WU discloses of the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture (fig. 4; page 4, … provides an interpolation filter training method, including: a computing device interpolating pixels of a sample image at integer pixel positions through a first interpolation filter to obtain the sample image at a first score The first sub-pixel image of the pixel position; input the sample image into the second interpolation filter to obtain the second sub-pixel image; which is the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture as a modification to the method for the benefit of that minimizing a first function representing the difference between the first sub-pixel image and the second sub-pixel image (page 4).
Regarding claim 41, LUO teaches an apparatus (fig. 3B) comprising memory (fig. 3B, 234) one or more processors (fig. 3B, 302, 218, 220) couple to the memory (as shown in fig. 3B), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
decode a first picture (as shown in fig. 3B; paragraph 0012, … FIG. 3B illustrates a schematic diagram of another exemplary decoding process of a hybrid video coding system),
resampling at least one part of the first picture to at least one part of a second picture (fig. 11, 1104; the resampled reference picture is resampling at least one part of the first picture (reference) to at least one part of a second picture (current picture); paragraph 0110, … the resampled reference picture can be one of the pictures in the DPB (e.g., first reference picture 504, second reference picture 506, or third reference picture 508)), wherein resampling the at least one part of the first picture comprises, for at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture, selecting a resampling filter (fig. 11, 1104, fixed-phase interpolation filter is a resampling filter) responsive to a sub-pixel position of the sample in the at least one part of the first picture (fig. 11, 1104/1106; paragraph 0110, … The resampled reference picture can be one of the pictures in the DPB (e.g., first reference picture 504, second reference picture 506, or third reference picture 508). The fixed-phase interpolation filter can include a fixed-phase horizontal interpolation filter and a fixed-phase vertical interpolation filter. A phase of the fixed-phase interpolation filter can be a sub-pixel position of a motion vector of the block, and the phase of the fixed-phase interpolation filter includes a horizontal phase and a vertical phase).
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture .
KADONO discloses of selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture (page 1, … proper downsampling can be selected in accordance with the type of image, still image or dynamic image, so that the image quality deterioration caused by the encoding accompagnied by the downsampling can be avoided)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture as a modification to the apparatus for the benefit of that guarantee the image quality (page 1).
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture.
WU discloses of the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture (fig. 4; page 4, … provides an interpolation filter training method, including: a computing device interpolating pixels of a sample image at integer pixel positions through a first interpolation filter to obtain the sample image at a first score The first sub-pixel image of the pixel position; input the sample image into the second interpolation filter to obtain the second sub-pixel image; which is the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture as a modification to the apparatus for the benefit of that minimizing a first function representing the difference between the first sub-pixel image and the second sub-pixel image (page 4).
Regarding claim 50, LUO teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (paragraph 0026, … The compression and decompression can be implemented by software executed by a processor (e.g., a processor of a generic computer) or specialized hardware. The module for compression is generally referred to as an “encoder,” and the module for decompression is generally referred to as a “decoder.” The encoder and decoder can be collectively referred to as a “codec.” The encoder and decoder can be implemented as any of a variety of suitable hardware, software, or a combination thereof. For example, the hardware implementation of the encoder and decoder can include circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), discrete logic, or any combinations thereof. The software implementation of the encoder and decoder can include program codes, computer-executable instructions, firmware, or any suitable computer-implemented algorithm or process fixed in a computer-readable medium) a method (fig. 3B) comprising:
decode a first picture (as shown in fig. 3B; paragraph 0012, … FIG. 3B illustrates a schematic diagram of another exemplary decoding process of a hybrid video coding system),
resampling at least one part of the first picture to at least one part of a second picture (fig. 11, 1104; the resampled reference picture is resampling at least one part of the first picture (reference) to at least one part of a second picture (current picture); paragraph 0110, … the resampled reference picture can be one of the pictures in the DPB (e.g., first reference picture 504, second reference picture 506, or third reference picture 508)), wherein resampling the at least one part of the first picture comprises, for at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture, selecting a resampling filter (fig. 11, 1104, fixed-phase interpolation filter is a resampling filter) responsive to a sub-pixel position in the at least one part of the first picture (fig. 11, 1104/1106; paragraph 0110, … The resampled reference picture can be one of the pictures in the DPB (e.g., first reference picture 504, second reference picture 506, or third reference picture 508). The fixed-phase interpolation filter can include a fixed-phase horizontal interpolation filter and a fixed-phase vertical interpolation filter. A phase of the fixed-phase interpolation filter can be a sub-pixel position of a motion vector of the block, and the phase of the fixed-phase interpolation filter includes a horizontal phase and a vertical phase).
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture .
KADONO discloses of selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture (page 1, … proper downsampling can be selected in accordance with the type of image, still image or dynamic image, so that the image quality deterioration caused by the encoding accompagnied by the downsampling can be avoided)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that selecting a resampling filter responsive to a classification of the first picture as a modification to the non-transitory computer readable medium for the benefit of that guarantee the image quality (page 1).
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture.
WU discloses of the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture (fig. 4; page 4, … provides an interpolation filter training method, including: a computing device interpolating pixels of a sample image at integer pixel positions through a first interpolation filter to obtain the sample image at a first score The first sub-pixel image of the pixel position; input the sample image into the second interpolation filter to obtain the second sub-pixel image; which is the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the sub-pixel position being obtained for the at least one sample of the at least one part of the second picture as a modification to the non-transitory computer readable medium for the benefit of that minimizing a first function representing the difference between the first sub-pixel image and the second sub-pixel image (page 4).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 32 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that comprising transmitting the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture to a display (as shown in fig. 3B, reconstructed part of the second picture is transmitted as video stream 304; as shown in fig. 4, it is transmitted to Display).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 32 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that storing the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture in a decoded picture buffer storing reference pictures (as shown in fig. 2B, at least one reconstructed part of the second picture in a decoded picture buffer storing reference pictures from 222 to 224 ).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 33 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that encoding a third picture (fig. 2B, video sequence 202 including third picture) comprising determining a prediction for at least one block of the third picture (fig. 2B, prediction data 206) using the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture (fig. 2B, reconstructed residual BPU 222) and encoding the at least one block of the third picture using the prediction (as shown in fig. 2B, Binary coding 226).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 34 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that comprising decoding a third picture (fig. 3B, video stream 228 including third picture, binary decoding 302) comprising determining a prediction for at least one block of the third picture (fig 3B, predicted BPU 208) using the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture (fig. 3B, reconstructed residual BPU 222) and decoding the at least one block of the third picture using the prediction (as shown in fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 32 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that the resampling filter is a non-separable filter (paragraph 0090, … a phase of the interpolation filter can be different row-by-row and/or column-by-column. How frequently a phase of the interpolation filter changes for each sample position within a given block to be predicted depends on a number of factors, including the sub-pel precision of the resampling filters (e.g., ⅛-pel vs. 1/16-pel vs. 1/32-pel), the scaling ratio in each dimension (e.g., 2:1 or 1.5:1 or 3:1, etc), the block size, and the like”; since the phase of the filter changes for each sample position, it cannot be separated as a horizontal filter and a vertical filter; the filter works a one filter for each sample position since it cannot be split into such row and column operations and needs to be applied directly in its 2D form. Therefore, Luo discloses of a non-separable filter).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 41 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that storing the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture in a decoded picture buffer storing reference pictures (as shown in fig. 2B, at least one reconstructed part of the second picture in a decoded picture buffer storing reference pictures from 222 to 224 ).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 41 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that encoding a third picture (fig. 2B, video sequence 202 including third picture) comprising determining a prediction for at least one block of the third picture (fig. 2B, prediction data 206) using the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture (fig. 2B, reconstructed residual BPU 222) and encoding the at least one block of the third picture using the prediction (as shown in fig. 2B, Binary coding 226).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 41 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that comprising decoding a third picture (fig. 3B, video stream 228 including third picture, binary decoding 302) by determining a prediction for at least one block of the third picture (fig 3B, prediction data) using the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture (fig. 3B, reconstructed residual BPU 222) and decoding the at least one block of the third picture using the prediction (as shown in fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 41 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that decode coefficients of the resampling filter from a bitstream (fig. 11, step 1104, in which, coefficients of the resampling filter (interpolation filter) is determined).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 41 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of a video, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of video, (paragraph 0025, … A video capture device (e.g., a camera) can be used to capture and store those pictures in a temporal sequence, and a video playback device (e.g., a television, a computer, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a video player, or any end-user terminal with a function of display…; in which, a television, a smartphone has antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of a video, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of video by inheritance) or (iii) a display configured to display the at least one part of the second image (fig. 4, Display)
Regarding claim 49, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 41 as discussed above. In addition, LUO further discloses that comprising a TV, a cell phone, a tablet or a Set Top Box (paragraph 0025, …A video capture device (e.g., a camera) can be used to capture and store those pictures in a temporal sequence, and a video playback device (e.g., a television, a computer, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a video player, or any end-user terminal with a function of display).
12. Claim 40, 52 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (US 20210044799) and in view of KADONO (WO 9900985) ) and further in view of WU et al. (WO 2020069655)and further in view of RUSANOVSKYY et al. (WO 2013030456).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 32 as discussed above.
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of the resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture.
RUSANOVSKYY discloses of the resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture (page 51, may determine a resampling process, parts thereof, or threshold or other parameter values to be used based on one or more cost functions and by (approximate) minimization/maximization of these one or more cost functions… perform a rate- distortion optimized selection of one or more of the resampling process, parts thereof, or threshold or other parameter values, where the distortion is based on a selected cost function. The cost function used by the encoder may also be based on synthesizing a picture, where in the synthesis process the resampled depth picture is used… Identification of the used resampling process in encoding and/or to-be-used resampling process in decoding… A decoder according to the invention may decode from the bitstream indications specifying at least parts of the resampling method used in encoding and/or to be used in decoding. The decoder may then perform the resampling process in accordance with the decoded indications; which is resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to minimization/maximization of these one or more cost functions (page 51).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of LUO, KADONO and WU teaches the limitations recited in claim 50 as discussed above.
It is noticed that LUO does not disclose explicitly of the resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture.
RUSANOVSKYY discloses of the resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture (page 51, may determine a resampling process, parts thereof, or threshold or other parameter values to be used based on one or more cost functions and by (approximate) minimization/maximization of these one or more cost functions… perform a rate- distortion optimized selection of one or more of the resampling process, parts thereof, or threshold or other parameter values, where the distortion is based on a selected cost function. The cost function used by the encoder may also be based on synthesizing a picture, where in the synthesis process the resampled depth picture is used… Identification of the used resampling process in encoding and/or to-be-used resampling process in decoding… A decoder according to the invention may decode from the bitstream indications specifying at least parts of the resampling method used in encoding and/or to be used in decoding. The decoder may then perform the resampling process in accordance with the decoded indications; which is resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the resampling filter is determined based on a rate-distortion cost determined between the at least one part of the second picture and the at least one reconstructed part of the second picture obtained from the decoded first picture as a modification to the non-transitory computer readable medium for the benefit of that to minimization/maximization of these one or more cost functions (page 51).
13. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
14. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights