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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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)(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, 2, 7-9,13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ameur et al. (“Style-based film grain analysis and synthesis”, IDS).
With respect to claim 1, Ameur et al. teach a grain analysis system configured for analyzing a first video frame (reference video with grain) and outputting respective first film grain information for film grain that is included in the first video frame or configured for analyzing a second video frame and outputting second film grain information (Fig. 1,style encoder S extracts style vector sref from reference video/image; 3.1 System overview and 3.2 Reference-based film grain style); and
at least one of:
a grain removal system configured for removing the film grain from the first video frame using the first film grain information to generate a third video frame corresponding to the first video frame with film grain removed, wherein the grain analysis system is separate from the grain removal system (optional); or
a grain synthesis system configured for synthesizing film grain for the third video frame using the first film grain information or the second film grain information, wherein the grain analysis system is separate from the grain synthesis system (Fig. 1, synthesis network G uses style vectors to blend it to the clean grain-free image Xsrc; 3.4 Film grain synthesis and generation).
With respect to claim 2, Ameur et al. teach that the grain analysis system provides the first film grain information to either the grain removal system or the grain synthesis system and the second film grain information to the grain synthesis system (Fig. 1 From style encoder S to synthesis network G).
With respect to claim 7, Ameur et al. teach an encoder configured to: encode the third video frame to generate an encoded third video frame (encoding), and encode the first film grain information to generate encoded first film grain information (style encoder S), and a decoder configured to decode the encoded third video frame to generate a decoded third video frame, and to decode the encoded first film grain information to generate decoded first film grain information (decoding), wherein the system includes the grain synthesis system, and the grain synthesis system synthesizes the film grain for the decoded third video frame using the decoded first film grain information (Synthesis network G) (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Ameur et al. teach that the system includes the grain synthesis system, and the grain synthesis system injects noise into the third video frame in multiple stages to synthesize the film grain (2.2 Film grain generation. The synthesis starts with random noise which ensures high spatiotemporal variations. The algorithm produces synthetic grain which matches the template very well while the random noise basis inherently provides realistic spatial and temporal variations.)
With respect to claim 13, Ameur et al. teach that the system includes the grain synthesis system, and the grain synthesis system synthesizes the film grain for the third video frame (decoded video without grain) using the second film grain information (latent style)(Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 14, Ameur et al. teach that the second video frame includes film grain that includes characteristics for the film grain (reference video with grain) that is inserted into the third video frame (decoded video without grain) (Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 17, Ameur et al. teach that a combination of two or more of the grain analysis system, the grain removal system, or the grain synthesis system are jointly trained together (Fig. 1, The two forward passes used for training the four modules of our solution).
With respect to claim 18, Ameur et al. different combinations of two or more of the grain analysis system, the grain removal system, or the grain synthesis system are jointly trained together, and different inputs and known outputs are used to train the different combinations (Fig. 1, reference guided forward or latent guided forward).
Claim 19 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ameur et al. (“Style-based film grain analysis and synthesis”, IDS) in view of Khsib (US 11,930,222).
With respect to claim 3, Ameur et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 3 respectively depend.
Ameur et al. do not teach expressly that the system includes the grain removal system, the grain analysis system outputs the first film grain information to the grain removal system, and the grain removal system removes the film grain from the first video frame using the first film grain information to output the third video frame.
Khsib teaches the system includes the grain removal system, the grain analysis system outputs the first film grain information to the grain removal system, and the grain removal system removes the film grain from the first video frame using the first film grain information to output the third video frame (Fig. 1,film grain from film grain description estimator to video encoder; col. 7 line 58 – col. 8 line 5, filter operations may have different settings that are configured by the encoder settings 124 to reduce or remove the film grain in the input video).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to remove film grain in the method of Ameur et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to have cleaner video image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khsib with Ameur et al. r to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Khsib teaches that the first film grain information is edited after being output by the grain analysis system and before being used by the grain removal system to remove the film grain. (Fig. 1, col. 7 lines 48-50, the video encoder 120 may extrapolate characteristics of the film grain in the input video 102 from the film grain description 116).
With respect to claim 8, Khsib teaches the system includes the grain removal system and the grain synthesis system, the grain analysis system and the grain removal system are located on a server, and the grain synthesis system is located on a receiver. (col. 15 line 60 – col. 16 line 15, Fig. 7 , ref. 700 can be host computer or server).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 5, 6, 10-12 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable of rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
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).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667