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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7-8, 10, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goren et al. (US 2020/0327334).
Regarding claim 1, Goren et al. disclose an apparatus (Figure 7) comprising:
interface circuitry (Figure 7, 712 and 716 are interface circuitry.);
machine readable instructions (Figure 5); and
programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions (Figure 7, 702 and 728 are programmable circuitry, see paragraphs [0059] and [0068], such that the instructions in Figure 5 are executed.) to:
generate a scaled frame from an input video frame (Figure 5, step 504 and paragraph [0046].);
segment, with a neural network, the scaled frame to generate a scaled segmentation map based on the scaled frame, the scaled segmentation map to associate pixels of the scaled frame with ones of a plurality of segments in the scaled frame (Figure 5, step 506 and paragraphs [0011], [0017] and [0047].); and
generate an output video frame based on the input video frame and an upscaled version of the scaled segmentation map (Figure 5, step 510 and paragraph [0049], step 510 is based on the steps before it, including 508 and 502.).
Regarding claim 3, Goren et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more of the segments correspond to objects in the input video frame (Paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Goren et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to:
access the input video frame from an input video stream (Figure 5, 502 and paragraph [0017].);
access a subsequent video frame from the input video stream (Paragraph [0017], the next frame is a subsequent video frame.); and
generate the scaled frame before the subsequent video frame is accessed (Figure 5 and paragraph [0017], the segmentation neural network accesses the subsequent frame, which is at step 506, where the scaled frame is generated at step 504 which is before 506.).
Regarding claim 8, Goren et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to generate an output video stream based on the output video frame (Figure 4, step 406 and paragraph [0042].).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren et al. (US 2020/0327334) in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0083855).
Regarding claim 2, Goren et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Goren et al. fail to teach wherein the segmentation map includes confidence values associated with the pixels, the confidence values representative of probabilities that ones of the pixels correspond to the at least one of the segments.
Choi et al. disclose wherein a segmentation map includes confidence values associated with the pixels (Paragraph [0036]), the confidence values representative of probabilities that ones of the pixels correspond to the at least one of the segments (Paragraph [0072]).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Goren et al. performs the same function as it does separately of generating a segmentation map, and Choi et al. performs the same function as it does separately of including confidence values in a segmentation map.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the segmentation map including confidence values associated with the pixels.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren et al. (US 2020/0327334) in view of Chang et al. (US 2018/0276894).
Regarding claim 4, Goren et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Goren et al. fail to teach wherein the segments include a first segment and a second segment, and the programmable circuitry is to determine a first priority level corresponding to the first segment and a second priority level corresponding to the second segment, the first priority level greater than the second priority level.
Chang et al. wherein segments include a first segment and a second segment, and programmable circuitry is to determine a first priority level corresponding to the first segment and a second priority level corresponding to the second segment, the first priority level greater than the second priority level (Paragraph [0058].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the priority and resolution teachings of Chang et al. in the apparatus taught by Goren et al., such that higher priority segments are rendered at a higher resolution and lower priority segments are rendered at a lower resolution. The motivation to combine would have been in order to not cause a heavy loading on the programmable circuitry (See paragraph [0059] of Chang et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Goren et al. and Chang et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein first output pixels of the output video frame are associated with the first segment and second output pixels of the output video frame are associated with the second segment, the first output pixels associated with a higher resolution than the second output pixels (Chang et al.: Paragraph [0058].).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren et al. (US 2020/0327334) in view of Chang et al. (US 2018/0276894) and further in view of Geddes et al. (US 2023/0344957).
Regarding claim 6, Goren et al. and Chang et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 4.
Goren et al. and Chang et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the first segment is a foreground segment of the input video frame and the second segment is a background segment of the input video frame.
Geddes et al. disclose wherein a first segment is a foreground segment of the input video frame and a second segment is a background segment of the input video frame (Paragraph [0102]).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Goren et al. and Chang et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing higher and lower resolution segments, and Geddes et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing higher resolution for a foreground and a lower resolution for a background.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the first segment is a foreground segment of the input video frame and the second segment is a background segment of the input video frame.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 9 is the inclusion of the limitation reciting “…and generate the scaled frame concurrently with access of the subsequent video frame” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
In the closest prior art, Goren et al. disclose wherein the programmable circuitry is to: access the input video frame from an input video stream; access a subsequent video frame from the input video stream (See claim 7). However, Goren et al. disclose of generating the scaled frame at a different time than accessing of the subsequent video frame, and does not teach and/or suggest of performing these concurrently. None of the other closest prior art references, even in combination, teach and/or suggest of the specifically claimed feature as highlighted above.
Claim 18 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
23 July 2026
Prosecution Insights