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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5,7-8,16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, Species III, Species IV there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/13/2026.
Applicant’s election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the subject matter among the groups is not independent and distinct as required by statute, and that the Office has historically examined applications containing multiple species are not obvious variants of each other. This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the restriction requirement, the species and/or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species represent separate and distinct inventions. Moreover, as specified on pages 3-4 of the office action, the search burden applies due the inventions having acquired a separate status in the art due to their different classification, the inventions requiring a different field of search, and the prior art applicability to one invention would not likely being applicable to another invention.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim recites, inter alia, “A non-instantaneous readable storage medium storing computer instructions…” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not specifically identify what may be included as a non-instantaneous readable storage medium and what is not to be included as a readable storage medium.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a non-instantaneous readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the silence of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the non-instantaneous readable storage medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a non-instantaneous readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0327819 by Wu et al.
Regarding claim 1, a method for video frame interpolation processing, comprising:
acquiring a first video frame and a second video frame of a video, wherein the first video frame and the second video frame are adjacent temporally, and the first video frame is a forward frame of the second video frame (paragraph 0055 teaches “Optionally, in another embodiment, when a scene is switched at the current frame against the previous frame, after the matched blocks are searched for the first time, the to-be-interpolated frame is obtained in an extrapolation manner when it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is greater than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the M1.times.M1 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold. Optionally, the current frame may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame, or the previous frame may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame.”);
acquiring a first comparison result between the first video frame and the second video frame based on the first video frame and the second video frame, wherein the first comparison result indicates whether a picture switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame (paragraph 0073 teaches “Optionally, a scene switching detection is performed after the bidirectional motion estimation of the first level of 16.times.16 blocks is performed. Specifically, when it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is less than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the 16.times.16 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame Fn and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold, it is determined that no scene switching occurs, and step S302, that is, the bidirectional motion estimation of the second level of 8.times.8 blocks, is performed. When it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is greater than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the 16.times.16 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame Fn and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold, it is determined that scene switching occurs, and the to-be-interpolated frame Fn is obtained in an extrapolation manner. Optionally, the current frame Fn+1 may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame Fn, or the previous frame Fn-1 may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame Fn.”); and
determining whether to interpolate a frame between the first video frame and the second video frame based on the first comparison result (in addition to discussion above, paragraph 0073 teaches “When scene switching occurs between adjacent frames, if the to-be-determined matched block pairs with an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold are not counted until multiple levels of motion estimation are performed, the amount of computing increases and the multiple levels of motion estimation are futile because the to-be-interpolated frame Fn is presumed to be obtained by using an extrapolation method. Therefore, the amount of computing is reduced effectively if the counting is performed after the bidirectional motion estimation of the first level of 16.times.16 blocks is performed.”).
Regarding claim 2, the method wherein the picture switch comprises a subtitle switch and/or a scene switch (paragraph 0055 teaches “Optionally, in another embodiment, when a scene is switched at the current frame against the previous frame, after the matched blocks are searched for the first time, the to-be-interpolated frame is obtained in an extrapolation manner when it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is greater than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the M1.times.M1 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold. Optionally, the current frame may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame, or the previous frame may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame.”).
Regarding claim 9, the method wherein the acquiring the first comparison result between the first video frame and the second video frame based on the first video frame and the second video frame, comprises: determining whether the scene switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame based on whether a scene of the first video frame and a scene of the second video frame are identical (paragraph 0055 teaches “Optionally, in another embodiment, when a scene is switched at the current frame against the previous frame, after the matched blocks are searched for the first time, the to-be-interpolated frame is obtained in an extrapolation manner when it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is greater than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the M1.times.M1 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold. Optionally, the current frame may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame, or the previous frame may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame.”).
Regarding claim 10, the method wherein the determining whether the scene switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame based on whether the scene of the first video frame and the scene of the second video frame are identical, comprises: acquiring a second similarity between the first video frame and the second video frame; in response to the second similarity being greater than a second threshold, determining that the scene switch does not exist between the first video frame and the second video frame; and in response to the second similarity being not greater than the second threshold, determining that the scene switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame (in addition to discussion above, paragraph 0073 teaches “Optionally, a scene switching detection is performed after the bidirectional motion estimation of the first level of 16.times.16 blocks is performed. Specifically, when it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is less than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the 16.times.16 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame Fn and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold, it is determined that no scene switching occurs, and step S302, that is, the bidirectional motion estimation of the second level of 8.times.8 blocks, is performed. When it is determined that the number of all the following to-be-determined matched block pairs is greater than a preset threshold, that is, the to-be-determined matched block pairs that correspond to the 16.times.16 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame Fn and have an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold, it is determined that scene switching occurs, and the to-be-interpolated frame Fn is obtained in an extrapolation manner. Optionally, the current frame Fn+1 may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame Fn, or the previous frame Fn-1 may be copied as the to-be-interpolated frame Fn. When scene switching occurs between adjacent frames, if the to-be-determined matched block pairs with an SBAD value greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold are not counted until multiple levels of motion estimation are performed, the amount of computing increases and the multiple levels of motion estimation are futile because the to-be-interpolated frame Fn is presumed to be obtained by using an extrapolation method. Therefore, the amount of computing is reduced effectively if the counting is performed after the bidirectional motion estimation of the first level of 16.times.16 blocks is performed.”).
Regarding claim 11, the method wherein the determining whether to interpolate a frame between the first video frame and the second video frame based on the first comparison result, comprises: in response to the first comparison result indicating that the picture switch does not exist between the first video frame and the second video frame, determining to interpolate a frame between the first video frame and the second video frame; and in response to the first comparison result indicating that the picture switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame, determining not to interpolate a frame between the first video frame and the second video frame (in addition to discussion above, paragraph 0086-0087 teaches “The determining unit 502 is further configured to determine motion vectors of the M1.times.M1 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame according to motion vectors of the first to-be-determined matched block pair if it is determined that an SBAD value of the first to-be-determined matched block pair is less than an SBAD threshold. The match searching unit 501 is further configured to: if the SBAD value of the first to-be-determined matched block pair, which is determined by the determining unit 502, is greater than or equal to the SBAD threshold, split the M1.times.M1 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame into M2.times.M2 blocks, and search for matched blocks again in the current frame and the previous frame respectively by using the M2.times.M2 blocks of the to-be-interpolated frame as a mirror center, where an SHAD threshold for searching for the matched blocks again is 1/4 of the SBAD threshold applied in the previous time of searching for the matched blocks, both M1 and M2 are 2 to the power of m, m is a positive integer, and M2=M1/2.”).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in the corresponding claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in the corresponding claim 1 above (in addition to claim 1, fig. 6, 610 shows processor, 630 memory, paragraph 0109 teaches “The application module 634 includes various applications and is configured to implement various application services.”).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in the corresponding claim 1 above (in addition claim 1, paragraph 0106).
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) 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0327819 by Wu et al. in view of US 2010/0328529 by Hirayama et al.
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. discloses the method wherein the acquiring the first comparison result between the first video frame and the second video frame based on the first video frame and the second video frame (as discussed above), but fails to disclose comprises: determining whether the subtitle switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame based on whether a subtitle content of the first video frame and a subtitle content of the second video frame are identical.
Hirayama et al. discloses determining whether the subtitle switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame based on whether a subtitle content of the first video frame and a subtitle content of the second video frame are identical (Abstract teaches “The subtitle part determination module determines, as the subtitle part, a pixel or pixel group on the high-luminance region side (white peak) that neighbors the detection position of an image edge where a luminance level changes or on the low-luminance region side (black bottom) that neighbors the detection position of the image edge where the luminance level changes. When it is detected that the subtitle part remains unchanged by comparing two continuous video frames along the time axis, the still subtitle detection module detects the subtitle part as a still subtitle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ability to include determining whether the subtitle switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame, as taught by Hirayama et al. into the system of Wu et al., because such incorporation would allow for the benefit of detecting changes in the frame, thus increase use accessibility of the system.
Regarding claim 6, the method wherein the determining whether the subtitle switch exists between the first video frame and the second video frame based on whether the subtitle content of the first video frame and the subtitle content of the second video frame are identical, comprises:
acquiring a first recognition text content of the first video frame (Hirayama et al., paragraph 0023-0024 teaches “The subtitle part determination module determines, as a subtitle part, a pixel or pixel group on the high-luminance region side (white peak region side) that neighbors the detection position of an image edge (a border of a character) where a luminance level changes or on the low-luminance region side (black bottom region side) that neighbors the detection position of an image edge (a border of a character) where a luminance level changes. (More specifically, for example, on the former white peak region side, a subtitle part including white characters on a black background is determined, and on the latter black bottom region side, a subtitle part including black characters on a white background is determined.)”);
acquiring a second recognition text content of the second video frame (as discussed above); and
in response to the first recognition text content and the second recognition text content being identical, determining that the subtitle switch does not exist between the first video frame and the second video frame (in addition to discussion above, Hirayama et al., paragraph 0039 teaches “In this checking process, for example, when the sum of luminance level differences of corresponding pixels between the two neighboring frames in a small pixel block (like 1.times.1 to 4.times.4 pixel blocks) is equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold, still determination module 131 determines no change in that block. When no change is detected, still determination module 131 outputs still determination flag S131.”).
The motivation for combining references has been discussed in independent claim above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 are depend on claim 12, therefore claim 13-15 are objected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/NIGAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484