DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (Pub. No. US 20200145697).
generating first resolution video data (uncompressed first video frame) comprising a plurality of tiles/blocks that each comprise a plurality of pixels [Para. 24, 33 and 55];
determining whether a first tile of the plurality of tiles matches a previously- received version of the first tile [Claim 1 “receiving compressed video data; decoding the compressed video data to produce an uncompressed first video frame, a first frame syntax element, an uncompressed second video frame adjacent to the first video frame in a video sequence, and a second frame syntax element” and Para. 27 “the computationally intensive process 140 may only be applied to a portion of the enhanced second video frame 170, for example, to a subset of one or more blocks of pixels within the enhanced second video frame 170, as is described herein below”].
at least on condition that the first tile does not match (meet or exceeds) the previously-received version (uncompressed first video frame) of the first tile, upscaling (produced using sr) the first tile from a first resolution (lower resolution) to a second resolution (higher resolution) greater than the first resolution [Para. 47 “If the accumulated error meets or exceeds the error threshold, a corresponding block in the next enhanced video frame is produced using SR, as shown by blocks 440 and 460. As shown by block 470, the block comparison continues for each block of the enhanced second video frame.” And Para. 46, “If average absolute magnitude of the accumulated error is above a given threshold, for example, the residual threshold η described previously, the transfer is stopped and the SR algorithm is applied to its lower-resolution decoded block 132. This resets the accumulated error to 0”; Para. 31 “It is understood that the enhanced first video frame 160 and the enhanced second video frame 170 have a higher resolution than the uncompressed first video frame 131 and the uncompressed second video frame 132.”; Claim 1 “applying a first video enhancement process to the uncompressed first video frame to produce an enhanced first video frame having a higher resolution than the uncompressed first video frame”];
determining whether a second tile of the plurality of tiles matches (below the residual threshold) a previously-received version (uncompressed first video frame) of the second tile [Para. 31 “ two adjacent frames, the uncompressed first video frame 131 and the uncompressed second video frame 132, where some blocks in the uncompressed second video frame 132 are predicted by motion compensated blocks in the uncompressed first video frame 131, as indicated by the syntax elements 135.” And Para. 39 “If the magnitude of the residual is below the residual threshold a transfer is performed. Otherwise, the low-resolution block may be directly up-sampled, for example, using bicubic interpolation”; and
at least on condition that the second tile matches (below the residual threshold) the previously-received version (uncompressed first video frame) of the second tile, refraining from upscaling (without applying the computationally intensive process) the second tile from the first resolution to the second resolution and reusing (copying/replicating) the previously-received version of the second tile [Para. 9 “A block having a portion of the enhanced first video frame from the enhanced first video frame is adaptively transferred to the uncompressed second video frame to produce an enhanced second video frame without applying the computationally intensive process to the uncompressed second video frame.” And Para. 19 “As used within this disclosure, the terms “transfer” and “transferring” refer to copying/replicating of pixels, blocks and/or syntax elements from a first video frame to a second video frame”].
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Bishop teaches generating first resolution video data comprising a plurality of tiles/patches that each comprise a plurality of pixels [Para. 22, 69, fig. 7 step 704, 706 and related description]; determining whether a first tile of the plurality of tiles matches a previously-received version of the first tile [Para. 69, 70, fig. 7 step 708 and corresponding description]; at least on condition that the first tile does not match the previously-received version of the first tile, upscaling (high resolution) the first tile from a first resolution to a second resolution greater than the first resolution [Para. 69 “combines the selected high spatial frequency patch”; fig. 7 steps 710 and related description];
determining whether a second tile of the plurality of tiles matches a previously-received version of the second tile [fig. 7 steps 714[Wingdings font/0xE0]716 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 708. It’s clear that the second patch match with a second patched received previously]; and at least on condition that the second tile matches the previously-received version of the second tile, refraining from upscaling (not selecting the high spatial frequency patch) the second tile from the first resolution to the second resolution [fig. 7 steps 716[Wingdings font/0xE0]708[Wingdings font/0xE0]712 and corresponding description. Since the claim doesn’t explicitly define how/what upscaling is, the cited portion reads on the claim limitations].
However, Bishop doesn’t explicitly teach reusing the previously-received version of the second tile when the second frame tile matches the previously-received second frame tile.
Seigman teaches determining whether a second tile of the plurality of tiles matches a previously-received version of the second tile [Para. 7, “The method further comprises determining a block size having a number of pixels in the current video frame, and determining which blocks of pixels in the current video frame changed from the previous video frame”; and Para. 9]; and at least on condition that the second tile matches the previously-received version of the second tile, refraining from upscaling the second tile from the first resolution to the second resolution and reusing the previously-received version of the second tile [Para. 7 “The method also comprises encoding the pixels of the blocks that have changed in DVC protocol format, and transmitting the encoding of the blocks that have changed in the DVC protocol format, without transmitting the blocks of the current video frame that have not changed.”; and Para. 3, “Generally, these commands involve expressing whether a pixel or series of consecutive pixels in the new frame should be copied from an adjacent pixel of the previous frame (above or to the left), left the same as the same pixel in the previous frame, made to be series of two pixel colors, or made to be an individual pixel”. It is clear that the block in the previous frame is reused if there is no change in corresponding block in current frame, because only the different/changed blocks are transmitted for update].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop teach reusing the previously received version of the second tile, feature as taught by Seigman; because the modification enables the system to reduce the computation power needed for super resolving video by reusing already enhanced blocks from previous frames and only running the expensive super resolution on blocks that actually change.
Claims 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) in view of Hanko et al. (Patent No. US 6,493,041).
Regarding claims 2, and 10 Bishop in view of Seigman doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Hanko teaches wherein determining whether the first tile matches the previously-received version of the first tile comprises comparing pixel values of the first tile to pixel values of the previously-received version of the first tile [col. 5 lines 1-4, Col. 2 lines 38-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Hanko; because the modification enables the system to reduce compute/power and improving temporary stability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) in view of Hanko et al. (Patent No. US 6,493,041) further in view of Abdo (Pub. No. US 2010/0215280).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Bishop in view of Seigman in view of Hanko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Abdo teaches wherein comparing the pixel values of the first tile to the pixel values of the previously-received version of the first tile comprises comparing hashed pixel values of the first tile to hashed pixel values of the previously-received version of the first tile [Para. 11-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman in view of Hanko teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Abdo; because the modification enables the system to improve video quality.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) in view of Hanko et al. (Patent No. US 6,493,041) further in view of Henderson et al. (Patent Number 4,893,116).
Regarding claims 4, and 12 Bishop in view of Seigman in view Hanko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Henderson teaches wherein the first tile comprises a first plurality of bits and the previously-received version of the first tile comprises a second plurality of bits, the method further comprising comparing a first subset of the first plurality of bits to a second subset of the second plurality of bits and refraining from comparing another subset of the first plurality of bits to a different subset of the second plurality of bits [Col. 6 lines 18-26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman in view of Honko teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Henderson; because the modification enables the system to reduce the computation power which saves resources.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) in view of Lin (Pub. No. US 2009/0161756).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Bishop in view of Seigman doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
Lin teaches wherein determining whether the second tile matches a previously-received version of the second tile [Para. 25] comprises: determining at least one difference between the second tile and the previously-received version of the second tile [Para. 26]; determining that the at least one difference represents noise in the video data [Para. 26]; and based at least in part on determining that the at least one difference represents noise in the video data [Para. 25]; determining that the second tile matches the previously-received version of the second tile and refraining from upscaling the second tile from the first resolution to the second resolution [Para. 26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Lin; because the modification enables the system to improve quality of video frame
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) in view of Sample et al. (Patent No. US 10,013,474).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Bishop in view of Seigman doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Sample wherein determining whether the first tile matches the previously-received version of the first tile comprises analyzing metadata (hash value) associated with the first tile [Abstract; Col. 16 lines 7-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Sideris; because the modification enables the system to hierarchical synchronization of tiles between a first dataset and a second dataset by computing and storing multiple composite cluster hash values for multiple clusters in the first and second dataset in order to improve efficiency
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Bishop in view of Seigman doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Sideris teaches identifying in the metadata at least one pixel difference in the first tile; and at least on condition of identifying the at least one-pixel difference in the first tile, upscaling the first tile from the first resolution to the second resolution greater than the first resolution [Col. 16 lines 1-6, claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Sideris; because the modification enables the system to hierarchical synchronization of tiles between a first dataset and a second dataset by computing and storing multiple composite cluster hash values for multiple clusters in the first and second dataset in order to improve efficiency.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) in view of GLEN (Pub. No. US 2012/0162250).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Bishop in view of Seigman doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, GLEN teaches wherein a supertile of the first resolution video data comprises the first tile and a third tile, the method further comprising: determining whether any tiles that define the supertile do not match a previously-received version of that tile [Para. 26, fig. 2 and related description]; and at least on condition that at least one tile that defines the supertile does not match a previously-received version of the at least one tile, upscaling all tiles that define the supertile from the first resolution to the second resolution [fig. 1, 2 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by GLEN; because the modification enables the system to improve quality of video frame
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Van Hook et al. (Patent No. US 6,937,245) and in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650).
Regarding claim 17, Bishop teaches a computing device configured to upscale video data, the computing device comprising: a display [fig. 8 unit 47 and related description]; a processor [fig. 8 unit 21 and related description]; and memory storing instructions executable by the processor [Para. 72] to: generate first resolution video data comprising a plurality of tiles that each comprise a plurality of pixels [Para. 22, 69, fig. 7 step 704, 706 and related description]; determine whether a first tile of the plurality of tiles matches a previously-received version of the first tile [Para. 69, 70, fig. 7 step 708 and corresponding description]; at least on condition that the first tile does not match the previously-received version of the first tile, upscale the first tile from a first resolution to a second resolution greater than the first resolution [Para. 69 “combines the selected high spatial frequency patch”; fig. 7 steps 710 and related description]; determine whether a second tile of the plurality of tiles matches a prior upscaled version of the second tile [fig. 7 steps 714[Wingdings font/0xE0]716 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 708. It’s clear that the second patch match with a second patched received previously]; at least on condition that the second tile matches the prior upscaled version of the second tile, refrain from upscaling the second tile from the first resolution to the second resolution and maintain a prior upscaled version of the second tile in the output buffer [fig. 7 steps 716[Wingdings font/0xE0]708[Wingdings font/0xE0]712 and corresponding description. Since the claim doesn’t explicitly define how/what upscaling is, the cited portion reads on the claim limitations].
However, Bishop doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Van Hook teaches write the upscaled first tile to an output buffer to replace a prior upscaled version of the previously-received version of the first tile [Col. 14 lines 45-50; and Col. 15 lines 14-17]; write data from the output buffer including the upscaled first tile and the prior upscaled version of the second tile to the display [Col. 14 lines 20-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Van; because the modification solves how to move and reformat image data efficiently from a small on-chip embedded frame buffer to an external from buffer for display.
Bishop in view of Van Hook doesn’t explicitly teach reusing the prior upscaled version of the second tile.
However, Seigman teaches determining whether a second tile of the plurality of tiles matches a prior upscaled version of the second tile [Para. 7, “The method further comprises determining a block size having a number of pixels in the current video frame, and determining which blocks of pixels in the current video frame changed from the previous video frame”; and Para. 9. It’s clear that there is no upscaling performed]; and at least on condition that the second tile matches the previously-received version of the second tile, refraining from upscaling the second tile from the first resolution to the second resolution and reusing the previously-received version of the second tile [Para. 7 “The method also comprises encoding the pixels of the blocks that have changed in DVC protocol format, and transmitting the encoding of the blocks that have changed in the DVC protocol format, without transmitting the blocks of the current video frame that have not changed.”; and Para. 3, “Generally, these commands involve expressing whether a pixel or series of consecutive pixels in the new frame should be copied from an adjacent pixel of the previous frame (above or to the left), left the same as the same pixel in the previous frame, made to be series of two pixel colors, or made to be an individual pixel”. It is clear that the block in the previous frame is reused if there is no change in corresponding block in current frame, because only the different/changed blocks are transmitted for update. Also, it is clear that there is no upscaling performed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Van Hook teach reusing the previously received version of the second tile, feature as taught by Seigman; because the modification enables the system to reduce the computation power needed for super resolving video by reusing already enhanced blocks from previous frames and only running the expensive super resolution on blocks that actually change.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Van Hook et al. (Patent No. US 6,937,245) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) further in view of Hanko et al. (Patent No. US 6,493,041).
Regarding claim 18, Bishop in view of Vah Hook in view of Seigman doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Hanko teaches wherein determining whether the first tile matches the previously-received version of the first tile comprises comparing pixel values of the first tile to pixel values of the previously-received version of the first tile [col. 5 lines 1-4, Col. 2 lines 38-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Vah Hook in view of Seigman teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Hanko; because the modification enables the system to reduce compute/power and improving temporary stability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Van Hook et al. (Patent No. US 6,937,245) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) further in view of Hanko et al. (Patent No. US 6,493,041) and further in view of Abdo (Pub. No. US 2010/0215280).
Regarding claim 19, Bishop in view of Van Hook and in view of Seigman and Hanko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
Abdo teaches wherein comparing the pixel values of the first tile to the pixel values of the previously-received version of the first tile comprises comparing hashed pixel values of the first tile to hashed pixel values of the previously-received version of the first tile [Para. 11-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view of Van Hook and in view of Seigman and Hanko teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Abdo; because the modification enables the system to improve video quality.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0218834) in view of Van Hook et al. (Patent No. US 6,937,245) in view of Seigman et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0106650) further in view of Hanko et al. (Patent No. US 6,493,041) and further in view of Henderson et al. (Patent Number 4,893,116).
Regarding claim 20, Bishop in view of Van Hook in view of Seigman and Hanko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
Henderson teaches wherein the first tile comprises a first plurality of bits and the previously-received version of the first tile comprises a second plurality of bits, the method further comprising comparing a first subset of the first plurality of bits to a second subset of the second plurality of bits and refraining from comparing another subset of the first plurality of bits to a different subset of the second plurality of bits [Col. 6 lines 18-26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Bishop in view Van Hook in view of Seigman and Hanko teaches the claim limitation, feature as taught by Henderson; because the modification enables the system to reduce the computation power which saves resources.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666