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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Walters does not teach "receiving, from the at least one receiver, a request for a color hint in response to accumulating video error" and "sending, to the at least one receiver, the color hint for color reconstruction in response to the request," as recited in amended independent claims 1, 12, and 19. Applicant asserts that even assuming the "luminance channel" of Walters corresponds to the claimed "Y-channel information from the YUV format," these specific features are missing from Walters.
The Examiner disagrees. Walters teaches a system for reduced bandwidth image and video transfer by transmitting a decolorized image (luminance channel only) and using a machine learning model (e.g., CNN) at the receiver to reconstruct color [0024], [0028], [0035], [0048]. Walters explicitly discusses handling errors in color reconstruction, including cases where the recolored image is unsatisfactory due to lossy reconstruction, which inherently involves accumulating errors over time in video sequences (e.g., lagging, freezing, or pixelation from poor reconstruction), [0016], [0029]. Walters further teaches receiving feedback from the receiver (client device/user) regarding the quality of the recolored image, which serves as a request when the reconstruction is unsatisfactory (i.e., in response to accumulating video error), and in response, providing an option to replace the recolored image with the original colored image or updating the model (Feedback can be received regarding performance of the model... Such feedback can then be utilized to update the model... an option can exist to replace a recolored image with an original colored image if the recolored image is unsatisfactory), [0056]. The original colored image or model update data functions as a "color hint" for color reconstruction, as Walters describes hints as including full-color pixels or frames to aid re-colorization (Color Hints and inserting a full-color pixel in the image to aid re-colorization; also, for videos, sending some full-color frames while others are decolorized), [0025], [0030], [0033], [0035].
Thus, Walters anticipates the amended features: the feedback from the receiver is the "request" in response to "accumulating video error" (unsatisfactory reconstruction over frames), and sending the original color data or update in response is the "color hint".
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walters (US 2023/0156169 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Walters (US 2023/0156169 A1) in view of Lainema (US 2003/0202594 A1).
1. Walters discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor assembly configured to, at least: encode at least one video in YUV format (colorized image), [0017], [0021]; send, to at least one receiver, only Y-channel information from the YUV format over at least one computer network (transmitting decolorized luminance-only image/video to minimize bandwidth/latency), [0018], [0023]; receive, from the at least one receiver, a request for a color hint in response to accumulating video error (receiving feedback when reconstruction is unsatisfactory to fine-tune the compression, interpreted as request due to accumulating error in video), [0025], [0043]; and send, to the at least one receiver, the color hint for color reconstruction in response to the request (sending original color data or full-color frame as hint/replacement), (Abstract), (Fig. 5), [0003], [0004], [0016], [0029], [0025], [0030], [0033], [0035], [0043].
Alternatively, Lainema discloses a video encoding system in YUV format (macroblocks with Y luminance 16x16 and U/V chrominance sub-sampled 8x8), where the decoder receives video and sends a request to the encoder for a refresh (e.g., INTRA-coded frame) in response to accumulating video error (e.g., corruption propagating over frames; feedback via line 121 when frame is undecodable due to errors); and the encoder sends the refresh data (full INTRA frame, including color information) for reconstruction (control manager 160 switches to INTRA on feedback to break error propagation), [0013], [0016]-[0018], [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Walters' feedback system with Lainema's explicit request-response for INTRA refresh on accumulating errors, as both references address error-resilient video transmission, and incorporating Lainema's mechanism would enhance Walters' color reconstruction by providing a standardized way to request and send full color data (as a "hint") when errors accumulate, preventing drift in low-latency streams.
2. Walters and Lainema disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the video comprises computer game video, Walters [0065].
3. Walters and Lainema disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor assembly is configured to send, along with the Y-channel information, at least one hint for color reconstruction, Walters [0025], [0033], [0043].
4. Walters and Lainema disclose the apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the hint comprises at least one RGB frame, Walters [0025], [0043], [0047].
12-15. Walters and Lainema disclose an apparatus comprising: at least one computer-readable medium that is not a transitory signal and having stored thereon instructions executable by at least one processor assembly to, at least: receive, from at least one transmitter, a Y-channel of data of at least one video in YUV format but not a U-channel or V-channel of data of the video; reconstruct color of the video; present on at least one display the video in color, send, to the at least one transmitter, a request for a color hint in response to accumulating video error; and receive, from the at least one transmitter, the color hint for color reconstruction in response to the request as similarly discussed above.
18. Walters and Lainema disclose the apparatus of Claim 12, wherein the instructions are executable to: input the Y-channel data to at least one machine learning (ML) model; and reconstruct the color of the video based at least in part on an output from the ML model, Walters [0003], [0035].
19-20. Walters and Lainema disclose a method, comprising: transmitting Y-channel data of a video encoded in YUV format to at least one receiver but not transmitting U-channel or V-channel data of the video to the receiver; at the receiver, colorizing the Y-channel data; presenting the video in color, sending, to at least one transmitter, a request for a color hint in response to accumulating video error; and receiving, from the at least one transmitter, the color hint for color reconstruction in response to the request as similarly discussed above.
Claim(s) 5-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (US 2023/0156169 A1) and Lainema (US 2003/0202594 A1) as applied above and further in view of Sviridenko (US 2021/0076016 Al).
5-11. Walters and Lainema disclose the apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the hint can be provided as metadata associated with the image, Walters [0047] but does not expressly disclose the metadata being an indication of shadow, depth, reflections, object surface type, object height, scene type nor a scene change in the video. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to provide any of such metadata to Walters as evidenced by Sviridenko [0055]-[0057], [0069], [0072]-[0076] and would have been obvious to modify Walters with Sviridenko in order to produce better color reconstruction of the image.
16-17. Walters, Lainema and Sviridenko the apparatus of Claim 14, wherein the hint comprises at least one of: an indication of shadow in the video; an indication of depth in the video; an indication of reflections in the video; an indication of object surface type in the video; an indication of object height in the video; indication of scene type in the video as similarly discussed above.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715