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 Status
This Office Action responds to reply filed on 12/23/25 regarding application 18/381306 that was initially filed on 10/18/23. Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-14 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered.
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.
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 11 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, US 2017/0134754 A1 (hereinafter Pan) in view of Budagavi et al., US 2019/0139266 A1 (hereinafter Budagavi).
As for claim 1, Pan discloses an image encoding method comprising, by an image encoding device: switching, based on one or more parameters ([0030], e.g., object detection and [0037], e.g., object identifier) related to an object ([0036], e.g., object) in an image ([0036], e.g., image), between an encoding process ([0037], e.g., first video data representation and [0038], e.g., second video data representation) for (i) a first region ([0036], e.g., segmented into an object) of the image including the object and (ii) a second region ([0036], e.g., background portions) of the image that does not include the object, the one or more parameters ([0030], e.g., object detection and [0037], e.g., object identifier) being input from a first processing device ([0051], e.g., content segmentation module performs object detection) that executes a prescribed task process on a basis of the image, to produce an encoded image ([0051], e.g., encodes); generating a bitstream ([0051], e.g., wavelet pyramids and metadata) including the encoded image ([0051], e.g., encodes); and transmitting ([0052], e.g., decoder module, note the transmission to the module) the bitstream to an image decoding device.
Pan does not explicitly disclose, but Budagavi teaches a bitstream including the one or more parameters ([0112], e.g., metadata parameter set) and flag information ([0112], e.g., flag) indicating whether the one or more parameters are added to the bitstream ([0112], e.g., bitstream).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Pan and Budagavi before him/her to modify the efficient video data representation and content based video retrieval framework of Pan with the teaching of point cloud compression using non-orthogonal projection of Budagavi with a motivation to quick and/or efficient processing of the parameter data by using the flag.
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Pan further discloses the image decoding device receives ([0052], e.g., decoder module, note the transmission to the module) the bitstream from the image encoding device, acquires the one or more parameters ([0030], e.g., object detection and [0037], e.g., object identifier) from the bitstream, and switches, based on the one or more parameters, between a decoding process ([0052], e.g., decoder module) for the first region ([0036], e.g., segmented into an object) and the second region ([0036], e.g., background portions).
As for claim 5, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 4. In addition, Pan further discloses the image decoding device outputs the one or more parameters ([0030], e.g., object detection and [0037], e.g., object identifier) to a second processing device that executes a prescribed task process ([0052], e.g., decoder module).
As for claim 9, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Pan further discloses the one or more parameters include at least one of a trust level value of a neural network task that is the prescribed task process, a counter value indicating a number of the object included in the image, category information indicating an attribute of the object included in the image, feature information ([0040], e.g., feature values) indicating a feature of the object included in the image, and boundary information indicating a boundary surrounding the object included in the image.
As for claim 11, the claim recites an image processing method of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 12, the claim recites an image encoding device of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 13, the claim recites an image decoding device of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 14, the claim recites an image decoding method of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
2. Claims 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Budagavi, and further in view of Gomes, US 2013/0279598 A1 (hereinafter Gomes).
As for claim 6, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Pan as modified by Budagavi does not explicitly teach, but Gomes teaches the encoding process includes at least one of a quantization process ([0051], e.g., For background blocks, the quantizer parameter will be a larger value), a filtering process, an intra prediction process, an inter prediction process, and an arithmetic encoding process.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Pan, Budagavi, and Gomes before him/her to modify the efficient video data representation and content based video retrieval framework of Pan with the teaching of method and apparatus for video compression of stationary scenes of Gomes with a motivation to provide an efficient bitstream for processing and/or transmission by using the quantization process and one or more parameters.
As for claim 7, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 6.
Pan as modified by Budagavi does not explicitly teach, but Gomes teaches the image encoding device sets the encoding process such that the first region has higher image quality or higher resolution than the second region ([0051], e.g., For background blocks, the quantizer parameter will be a larger value).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Pan, Budagavi, and Gomes before him/her to modify the efficient video data representation and content based video retrieval framework of Pan with the teaching of method and apparatus for video compression of stationary scenes of Gomes with a motivation to provide an efficient bitstream for processing and/or transmission by using the quantization process and one or more parameters.
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 6.
Pan as modified by Budagavi does not explicitly teach, but Gomes teaches the encoding process includes the quantization process ([0051], e.g., For background blocks, the quantizer parameter will be a larger value) and the image encoding device sets a value of a first quantization parameter for the first region to be smaller than a value of a second quantization parameter for the second region ([0051], e.g., For background blocks, the quantizer parameter will be a larger value).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Pan, Budagavi, and Gomes before him/her to modify the efficient video data representation and content based video retrieval framework of Pan with the teaching of method and apparatus for video compression of stationary scenes of Gomes with a motivation to provide an efficient bitstream for processing and/or transmission by using the quantization process and one or more parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/23/25, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the citations being used in the current rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485