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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 and 27 recites “Rol (Region of lnterest)s”. “Rol (Region of lnterest)s” should be read as RoIs (Region of Interests). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 23 and 31 recite “wherein the information on the RoI comprises at least one of a size information of the RoI and a position information of the RoI”. As supported by specification paragraph [0061], stating “In order to partition the image into one or more regions of interest and one or more regions of non-interest, at least one of position information or size information of a region of interest and/or a region of non-interest may be derived.”, since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 19-20, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “wherein a sample in a non-interest region, which is not included in the regions of interest, is encoded by converting its value to be different from an original value”. The applicant has cited the support for this claim is in specification paragraph 0082, stating “A sample value of a region excluding a region of interest in a current image and/or a reference image may be transformed into a predetermined sample value (e.g., white, black, etc.), which may improve efficiency of an inter prediction technique”. While the specification states a non-region of interest’s value is transformed into a predefined value, it does not state doing so by encoding. If the applicant believes there is sufficient support elsewhere in the specification, they are encouraged to point out such support.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the sample in the non-interest region is reconstructed with a pre-defined value in a decoding apparatus”. Similar to claim 19, the Applicant states specification paragraph 0082 supports this claim limitation. However, there is no mention of a decoding apparatus in specification paragraph 0082. If the applicant believes there is sufficient support elsewhere in the specification, they are encouraged to point out such support.
Claim 22 recites “wherein information on a RoI is decoded for each of the RoIs”. The Applicant states this claim limitation is supported on specification paragraph 0062-0063, stating “Specifically, through machine learning based object search, a region of interest and a region of non-interest may be specified and at least one of position information or size information of each region may be derived. Based on at least one of type information representing whether a type of a corresponding region is a region of interest or a region of non-interest, position information of each region or size information of each region, the image may be partitioned into at least one region of interest and at least one region of non-interest.
The position information may be obtained for each region of interest and may be obtained for each region of non-interest. Alternatively, the position information may be obtained only for a region of interest and may not be obtained for a region of non-interest. Similarly, the size information may be obtained for each region of interest and may be obtained for each region of non-interest. Alternatively, the size information may be obtained only for a region of interest and may not be obtained for a region of non-interest”. These 2 paragraphs refer to the partitioning step of the images and does not mention the decoding step the Applicant is claiming. If the applicant believes there is sufficient support elsewhere in the specification, they are encouraged to point out such support.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the accumulation period is determined based on characteristics of a video including the current image”. The applicant has cited the support for this claim is in specification paragraph 0077, stating “In a reference image, a region of interest of a current image may be cumulatively expressed. Here, a current image may refer to all images which refer to the reference image among images belonging to a picture group. Alternatively, a current image may refer to one or more partial images of all images which refer to the reference image. But, a region of interest of other image may not be cumulatively expressed for an image which is not referred to by other image among images belonging to a picture group”. The specification paragraph discusses cumulatively expressing an image in a picture group but does not discuss characteristics in a video like the Applicant is claiming. If the applicant believes there is sufficient support elsewhere in the specification, they are encouraged to point out such support.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected for their dependency on claims 20 and 22 respectively.
Claims 28-29, 32, and 35 corresponds to claims 19-20, 22, and 26 respectively, and thus are rejected for the same reasons of failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 30 is rejected for its dependency on claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “accumulating a plurality of Rol (Region of lnterest)s in a current image”. It is unclear if the Applicant is stating they are accumulating a plurality of RoIs in one image or one RoI in a series of images, as the last claim limitation of claim 18 also states “and wherein the RoIs includes a first RoI that is searched only in the previous image and a second RoI that is searched only in the current image”, implies one RoI is determined per image. For examination purposes, the examiner will assume this limitation is finding one RoI for the current image.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the sample in the non-interest region is reconstructed with a pre-defined value in a decoding apparatus”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sample” and “the non-interest region”. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret “the sample” as “a sample” and “the non-interest region” as “a non-interest region”.
Claim 27 is analogous to claim 18 and thus is rejected for the same reasons of indefiniteness.
Claims 19, 21-26 and claims 28-35 are rejected for their dependencies on claim 18 and 27 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 recites:
“accumulating a plurality of Rol(Region of lnterest)s in a current image” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining RoIs in an image.
“and decoding the current image including the plurality of RoIs” amounts to a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations.
“wherein the plurality of RoIs are accumulated from a plurality of images including a previous image of the current image and the current image” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining a plurality of RoIs in a previous image and a current image.
“and wherein the RoIs includes a first RoI that is searched only in the previous image and a second RoI that is searched only in the current image” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining an ROI in one image and another ROI different in another image.
Claim 19 recites “wherein a sample in a non-interest region, which is not included in the regions of interest, is encoded by converting its value to be different from an original value”. This amounts to a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the sample in the non-interest region is reconstructed with a pre-defined value in a decoding apparatus”. A person can, with the aid of a pen and paper, mentally redraw/reconstruct a sample in an area of non-interest with an arbitrary value. The decoding apparatus is recited generically such that it amounts to a generic system capable of performing math.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the pre-defined value is a value representing a specific color”. A person can mentally redraw with a particular color associated with an area of non-interest.
Claim 22 recites “wherein information on a RoI is decoded for each of the RoIs”. This amounts to a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the information on the RoI comprises at least one of a size information of the RoI and a position information of the RoI”. This amounts to a generic image decoding as described above. Decoding an image would result in information such as the size and position.
Claim 24 recites “wherein a boundary of a RoI coincides with a boundary of block partitioning”. A person can, with the aid of a pen and paper, can mentally determine a region of interest by shading an ROI in block partitions.
Claim 25 recites “wherein a number of the plurality of RoIs is determined differently based on an accumulation period defined by a number of the plurality of images”. A person can mentally determine a number of RoIs throughout a time lapse of a video or plurality of images.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the accumulation period is determined based on characteristics of a video including the current image”. A person can mentally determine characteristics in a video.
Claims 27, 29, and 31-32 is analogous to claims 18, 20, 23, and 22 respectively, reciting encoding instead of decoding. However, both encoding and decoding amounts to a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 28, 30, 33-35 is analogous to claims 19, 21, 24-26 respectively. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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 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 18-22, 24-31, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukherjee (US 20110276652 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mukherjee discloses a method of decoding an image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0041], "Reception module 315 comprises computer-executable process steps stored on a computer-readable storage medium for execution by a processor, such as CPU 302, to receive and decode moving image data"), the method comprising:
accumulating a plurality of Rol (Region of lnterest)s in a current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0145], " In steps 603 to 606, image data for multiple frames of a moving image is received over a network from the transmitting computer 100 at the receiving computer 200. Coordinates for a region of interest are received."),
and decoding the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0172], "In step 611, encoded image data for the first frame for the region surrounding the region of interest is decoded. In particular, the compressed bitstream for the block of pixels for the first frame is decoded using the same procedure that was described in step 605") including the plurality of RoIs (Mukherjee, paragraph [0155], "In step 605, encoded image data for the first frame for the region of interest is decoded."),
wherein the plurality of RoIs are accumulated from a plurality of images including a previous image of the current image and the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0186], "A region of interest for all of the multiple frames in the moving image is identified by the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100, where the identification module 218 identifies the region of interest by calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames."),
and wherein the RoIs includes a first RoI that is searched only in the previous image and a second RoI that is searched only in the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0186], "A region of interest for all of the multiple frames in the moving image is identified by the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100, where the identification module 218 identifies the region of interest by calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames", one region of interest is found in frame 1, another region of interest is found in frame 2, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Mukerhjee discloses the method of claim 18, wherein a sample in a non-interest region, which is not included in the regions of interest, is encoded by converting its value to be different from an original value (Mukherjee, paragraph [0093], "Further to the embodiment described herein, the encoding quality of the image data is scaled for each region surrounding the region of interest based on a distance between each region and the region of interest.").
Regarding claim 20, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the sample in the non-interest region is reconstructed with a pre-defined value in a decoding apparatus (Mukherjee, paragraph [0062], "Reception module 315 includes a decoding module 317 that is constructed to decode the received encoded image data for the region of interest and the region surrounding the region of interest, and to convert the decoded image data from Y'C.sub.BC.sub.R color space to RGB color space.").
Regarding claim 21, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the pre-defined value is a value representing a specific color (Mukherjee, paragraph [0062], "Reception module 315 includes a decoding module 317 that is constructed to decode the received encoded image data for the region of interest and the region surrounding the region of interest, and to convert the decoded image data from Y'C.sub.BC.sub.R color space to RGB color space.").
Regarding claim 22, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 18, wherein information on a RoI is decoded for each of the RoIs (Mukherjee, paragraph [0162], " In step 608, the data receiving module 316 of receiving computer 200 determines if image data for a second frame subsequent in time to the first frame for the region of interest is to be received, decoded, and displayed. If image data for a second frame subsequent in time to the first frame for the region of interest remains to be received, decoded, and displayed, the receiving computer 200 proceeds to step 603.").
Regarding claim 24, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 18, wherein a boundary of a RoI coincides with a boundary of block partitioning (Mukherjee, paragraph [0107], Fig. 7 below, "As depicted in FIG. 7, the order of transmission for the blocks of pixels begins at the center of the region of interest ("ROI center") and proceeds in a spiraling pattern to the blocks located at the edges of the frame.").
PNG
media_image1.png
280
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 18, wherein a number of the plurality of RoIs is determined differently based on an accumulation period defined by a number of the plurality of images (Mukherjee, paragraph [0075], “In step 504, a region of interest is identified for all of the multiple frames in the moving image, where the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100 identifies the region of interest by face detection calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames.).
Regarding claim 26, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the accumulation period is determined based on characteristics of a video including the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0075], “In step 504, a region of interest is identified for all of the multiple frames in the moving image, where the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100 identifies the region of interest by face detection calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames.).
Regarding claim 27, Mukherjee discloses a method of encoding an image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0014], “In yet another example embodiment, the encoding of image data, for one or both of the region of interest and the regions other than the region of interest, is performed in successive passes of increasing visual quality”),
accumulating a plurality of Rol(Region oflnterest)s in a current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0075], “In step 504, a region of interest is identified for all of the multiple frames in the moving image, where the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100 identifies the region of interest by face detection calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames.”),
and encoding the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0129], “[0129] In step 518, image data for a first frame for the region surrounding the region of interest is encoded) including the plurality of RoIs (Mukherjee, paragraph [0108], “In step 510, image data for a first frame for the region of interest is encoded, and, is encoded at the image quality level that was established for that block in step 506.”),
wherein the plurality of RoIs are accumulated from a plurality of images including a previous image of the current image and the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0075], “In step 504, a region of interest is identified for all of the multiple frames in the moving image, where the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100 identifies the region of interest by face detection calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames.”),
and wherein the RoIs includes a first RoI that is searched only in the previous image and a second RoI that is searched only in the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0186], "A region of interest for all of the multiple frames in the moving image is identified by the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100, where the identification module 218 identifies the region of interest by calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames", one region of interest is found in frame 1, another region of interest is found in frame 2, etc.).
Regarding claim 28, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 27, wherein a sample in a non-interest region, which is not included in the regions of interest, is encoded by converting its value to be different from an original value (Mukherjee, paragraph [0093], "Further to the embodiment described herein, the encoding quality of the image data is scaled for each region surrounding the region of interest based on a distance between each region and the region of interest.").
Regarding claim 29, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the value different from the original value is pre-defined in an encoding apparatus (Mukherjee, paragraph [0052], "Transmission module 215 also includes an encoding module 219 that is constructed to convert each frame in a moving image from RGB color space to Y'C.sub.BC.sub.R color space, and to store the image data in separate Y' (luminance), C.sub.B (chrominance blue) and C.sub.R (chrominance red) color planes.").
Regarding claim 30, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the value different from the original value is a value representing a specific color (Mukherjee, paragraph [0052], "Transmission module 215 also includes an encoding module 219 that is constructed to convert each frame in a moving image from RGB color space to Y'C.sub.BC.sub.R color space, and to store the image data in separate Y' (luminance), C.sub.B (chrominance blue) and C.sub.R (chrominance red) color planes.").
Regarding claim 33, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 27, wherein a boundary of a RoI coincides with a boundary of block partitioning (Mukherjee, paragraph [0107], Fig. 7 below, "As depicted in FIG. 7, the order of transmission for the blocks of pixels begins at the center of the region of interest ("ROI center") and proceeds in a spiraling pattern to the blocks located at the edges of the frame.").
PNG
media_image1.png
280
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 27, wherein a number of the plurality of RoIs is determined differently based on an accumulation period defined by a number of the plurality of images (Mukherjee, paragraph [0075], “In step 504, a region of interest is identified for all of the multiple frames in the moving image, where the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100 identifies the region of interest by face detection calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames.).
Regarding claim 35, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the accumulation period is determined based on characteristics of a video including the current image (Mukherjee, paragraph [0075], “In step 504, a region of interest is identified for all of the multiple frames in the moving image, where the identification module 218 of transmitting computer 100 identifies the region of interest by face detection calculations using the image data for at least some of the multiple frames.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 23, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 20110276652 A1) in view of Park (US 20060034367 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 22.
Mukherjee does not teach “wherein the information on the RoI comprises at least one of a size information of the RoI and a position information of the RoI”.
However, Park teaches wherein the information on the RoI comprises at least one of a size information of the RoI and a position information of the RoI (Park, paragraph [0017], "The foregoing and/or other aspects of the present general inventive concept are achieved by providing a method of encoding an image, the method including generating a first bitstream by encoding an omni-directional image and transmitting the first bitstream to a decoding apparatus, receiving position information of a region-of-interest selected from an image reconstructed based on the first bitstream from the decoding apparatus, and generating a second bitstream by encoding an image of the region-of-interest based on the position information.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to decode position information of the ROI of Mukherjee’s image, as taught by Park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve recreation of moving images and discern more clearly the region of interest in subsequent frames.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods 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 Mukherjee in view of Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 31, Mukherjee discloses the method of claim 27.
Mukherjee does not teach “wherein information on a RoI is encoded, and wherein the information on the RoI comprises at least one of a size information of the RoI and a position information of the RoI”.
However, Park discloses wherein information on a RoI is encoded, and wherein the information on the RoI comprises at least one of a size information of the RoI and a position information of the RoI (Park, paragraph [0017], "The foregoing and/or other aspects of the present general inventive concept are achieved by providing a method of encoding an image, the method including generating a first bitstream by encoding an omni-directional image and transmitting the first bitstream to a decoding apparatus, receiving position information of a region-of-interest selected from an image reconstructed based on the first bitstream from the decoding apparatus, and generating a second bitstream by encoding an image of the region-of-interest based on the position information.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to encode position information of the ROI for each image of Mukherjee, as taught by Park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve recreation of moving images and discern more clearly the region of interest in subsequent frames.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods 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 Mukherjee in view of Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, Mukherjee in view of Park discloses the method of claim 31, wherein the information is encoded for each of the RoIs (Park, paragraph [0017], "The foregoing and/or other aspects of the present general inventive concept are achieved by providing a method of encoding an image, the method including generating a first bitstream by encoding an omni-directional image and transmitting the first bitstream to a decoding apparatus, receiving position information of a region-of-interest selected from an image reconstructed based on the first bitstream from the decoding apparatus, and generating a second bitstream by encoding an image of the region-of-interest based on the position information.").
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672