DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment was filed on 12/4/2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed under Remarks on pages 6-9 on 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state on page 7:
PNG
media_image1.png
356
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The compressed bit stream may include information associated with the encoded image data and the filter set for improved upscaling, paragraph [0075]. In paragraph [0074], Park discloses that Fig. 13 is used to detail the process of generating a bitstream. Leading up to the description of the Fig. 13 of Park, paragraph [0140] states that the “processor 230 may include information associated with the filter set in supplemental enhancement information (SEI) data attached to the bit stream generated by encoding the downscaled image. The SEI data may provide information associated with a resolution, a bit rate, a frame rate, etc., of image data”. Therefore, as stated in the previous action, Park discloses this limitation recited in claim 1.
Further, on page 8, Applicants argue:
PNG
media_image2.png
528
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Just as discussed in the encoder part, Park discloses obtaining one or more parameters that are not used for decoding the image, as described in the decoding process. Park discloses performing decoding process at paragraph [0076]. As the parameter such as SEI header was part of bitstream from encoder, the SEI information is decoded along with NxM sized image. See paragraphs [0073-0079], Figures 12, 13, and 16.
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 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 1-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0053408 to Park et al. (hereafter, “Park).
With regard to claim 1 Park discloses an image encoding method comprising: by an image encoding device, encoding an image to generate a bitstream (paragraph [0074]); adding, to the bitstream, one or more parameters that are not used for encoding the image (paragraph [0075], “encoded image data and the filter set for improved upscaling”); transmitting, to an image decoding device, the bitstream to which the one or more parameters have been added (paragraph [0075]); and outputting the image and the one or more parameters to a first processing device that executes predetermined task processing (paragraph [0077]).
With regard to claim 2 Park discloses wherein the image decoding device receives the bitstream from the image encoding device, and outputs the image and the one or more parameters to a second processing device that executes task processing which is same as the predetermined task processing (Figure 2, encoder 22, decoder 28, outputting image on display 30).
With regard to claim 3 Park discloses wherein the first processing device and the second processing device switch at least one of a machine learning model, a detection threshold, a scaling value, and a post-processing method based on the one or more parameters when executing the predetermined task processing (paragraph [0077]).
With regard to claim 4 Park discloses wherein the predetermined task processing includes at least one of object detection, object segmentation, object tracking, action recognition, pose estimation, pose tracking, and hybrid vision (paragraph [0106]).
With regard to claim 5 Park discloses wherein the predetermined task processing includes image processing for improving image quality or image resolution of the image (paragraphs [0106, 0120]).
With regard to claim 6 Park discloses wherein the image processing includes at least one of morphological transformation and edge enhancement processing for enhancing an object included in the image (paragraphs [0106, 0140, 0171]).
With regard to claims 13-16, claims 13-16 are is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 13-16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0053408 to Park et al. (hereafter, “Park) in combination with US 2021/0168394 to Kato et al. (hereafter, “Kato”).
With regard to claim 7, Park teaches the image encoding method. However, Park does not expressly teach wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of a mounting height of a camera that outputs the image, a tilt angle of the camera, a distance from the camera to a region of interest, and a visual field of the camera.
Kato teaches wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of a mounting height of a camera that outputs the image, a tilt angle of the camera, a distance from the camera to a region of interest, and a visual field of the camera (paragraphs [0082-0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s reference to have specifics of one or more parameters defined in Kato’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have camera parameter index indicate a defined imaging situation, as suggested by Kato in paragraph [0090].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kato with Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
With regard to claim 8 Park discloses wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of a depth and a size of the object included in the image(paragraphs [0082-0085]).
With regard to claim 9 Park discloses wherein the one or more parameters include boundary information indicating a boundary surrounding the object included in the image, and distortion information indicating presence or absence of distortion in the image(paragraphs [0082-0085]).
With regard to claim 10 Park discloses wherein the boundary information includes position coordinates of a plurality of vertices related to a figure defining the boundary(paragraphs [0082-0085]).
With regard to claim 11 Park discloses wherein the boundary information includes center coordinates, width information, height information, and tilt information related to a figure defining the boundary(paragraphs [0082-0085]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0053408 to Park et al. (hereafter, “Park) in combination with US 2021/0168394 to Kato et al. (hereafter, “Kato”), further in view of WO 2021/176133 to Ilola et al. (hereafter, “Ilola”).
With regard to claim 12, Park in combination with Kato teaches the image encoding method. However, Park and Kato does not expressly teach wherein the distortion information includes additional information indicating that the image is an image captured by a fisheye camera, a super-wide angle camera, or an omnidirectional camera.
Ilola teaches wherein the distortion information includes additional information indicating that the image is an image captured by a fisheye camera, a super-wide angle camera, or an omnidirectional camera (paragraphs [0049, 0057, 0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s and Kato’s reference to have omnidirectional/fisheye camera defined in Ilola’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to form a monoscopic equirectangular panorama picture and have greater spatial extent than a field-of-view of a device rendering the content, as suggested by Ilola.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ilola with Kato and Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676