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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Pendu et al. (US 2020/0172813, hereinafter Pendu) in view of Ridge et al. (US 2016/0286226).
Regarding claim 1, Pendu discloses an encoding method for video data (see fig. 8), comprising: performing bit depth transform processing on a picture to generate a transformed picture (see 850 in fig. 8) and generate bit depth transform information (see 840 in fig. 8), wherein the bit depth transform information indicates information that is associated with the bit depth transform processing performed on the picture (see 840 from 810-830 in fig. 8), and the picture is one frame of pictures in the video data (see 820 in fig. 8); and encoding the transformed picture to generate encoding information corresponding to the transformed picture (see 860 in fig. 8), wherein the bit depth transform information and the encoding information are used to form a bitstream (see “bitstream” in fig. 2); decoding the encoding information to generate a decoded picture (see 920 in fig. 9); performing bit depth inverse transform processing on the decoded picture to generate an inverse transformed picture and generate bit depth inverse transform information (see 930 in fig. 9); comparing the inverse transformed picture with the picture to perform effect verification to generate bit depth verification effect information (see “Distortion” in fig. 1), wherein the bit depth inverse transform processing and the bit depth transform processing are inverse operations (see 930 and 940 in fig. 9), and the bit depth inverse transform information indicates information that is associated with the bit depth inverse transform processing performed on the decoded picture (see 930 in fig. 9).
Although Pendu discloses transmitting the bit depth verification effect information to a decoding terminal (see 920 in fig. 9 from 860 in fig. 8), it is noted that Pendu does not disclose wherein the decoding terminal determines whether to use a bit depth inverse transformation method for inverse transformation based on the bit depth verification effect information.
However, Ridge discloses an encoding method wherein the decoding terminal determines whether to use a bit depth inverse transformation method for inverse transformation (see determining to use one or more TMO method 702 in fig. 7) based on the bit depth verification effect information (see “information in the bitstream” in 702 of fig. 7).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Ridge teachings of selecting to use a bit depth inverse transformation method for inverse transformation over others into Pendu bit depth inverse transformation method for inverse transformation for the benefit of maximizing compression efficiency while maintaining a more visually pleasing experience for the viewer.
Regarding claim 2, Pendu further discloses wherein the bit depth transform processing is bit depth compression processing (see 850 in fig. 8), and performing the bit depth transform processing on the picture (see 850 in fig. 8), comprises: utilizing a bit depth compression method to perform bit depth compression on the picture to reduce a bit depth of the picture (see 850 in fig. 8), wherein the bit depth transform information comprises bit depth compression control information indicating information that is associated with the bit depth compression processing (see 840 in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Pendu further discloses wherein the bit depth compression control information comprises at least one of cases below: information indicating the bit depth compression method (see 840-850 in fig. 8),
Regarding claim 5, Pendu further discloses wherein the bit depth verification effect information comprises at least one of cases below: verification control information indicating whether to perform the effect verification, information indicating an effect verification method of the effect verification, and information indicating a verification result of the effect verification method (e.g. see ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Pendu further discloses wherein the bit depth inverse transform information comprises bit depth inverse transform control information indicating information that is associated with the bit depth inverse transform processing (see 930 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Pendu does not disclose discloses wherein the bit depth inverse transform control information comprises bit depth inverse transform switch information indicating whether to perform the bit depth inverse transform processing on the decoded picture.
Although it is not explicitly recited, it is conventional in the art for switching to transform or not transform an original image prior to encoding. The Examiner takes official notice that switching to transform an image or not is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to exploit the different method of transmission bitrate such as performing bit depth transform or not for the benefit of adaptability to adjust transmission rate based on bandwidth capability.
Regarding claim 8, Pendu further discloses wherein performing the bit depth inverse transform processing on the decoded picture, comprises: in response to the bit depth inverse transform switch information indicating that the bit depth inverse transform processing is performed, bit depth utilizing a bit depth inverse transform method to perform a bit depth inverse transform on the decoded picture, which is used for changing a bit depth of the decoded picture in a direction opposite to the bit depth transform (see 920-940 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Pendu further discloses wherein the bit depth inverse transform control information further comprises at least one of cases below: information indicating the bit depth inverse transform method, information indicating an input bit depth before the bit depth inverse transform processing, information indicating an output bit depth after the bit depth inverse transform processing (see 930-940 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Pendu further discloses wherein the bit depth transform processing is bit depth compression processing (see 850 in fig. 8), and the bit depth inverse transform processing is bit depth expansion processing (see 940 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Pendu further discloses wherein the bitstream comprises a bit depth transform extension bit, the bit depth transform extension bit is used to transmit the bit depth transform information in the bitstream (see “bitstream” in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the claim(s) recite a decoder (see fig. 9) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 13, 15-17 and 21, although Pendu discloses analogous limitations to claims 2-11 and 20 with an encoder (see fig. 9), it is noted that Pendu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose a decoder details to generate the analogous limitations. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that the entire process of decompressing and decoding any compressed and coded signal is merely the reverse procedure of the encoding process, as clearly disclosed in Pendu (see fig. 8 and fig. 9). Furthermore, it should be self-evident to one skilled in the art from the teaching of Pendu that the adaptive predictive encoder is an art-recognized equivalent structure to an adaptive predictive decoder and is designed to be used along with a similar but in reverse sequence predictive decoder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the reference of Pendu before him/her, to flexibly apply the reverse processing steps of the encoder of Pendu in a similarly designed decoder in order to be able to accurately decode any video signal that was compression encoded using the same predictive coding technique.
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite an encoder (see fig. 8) and a decoder (see fig. 9) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, Pendu further discloses computer-readable storage medium, on which instructions are stored, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor (see 1200 in fig. 12), cause a processor to implement the encoding method according to claim 1.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Chalmers et al. (US 2017/0094281), discloses compressing with reduced bit depth.
2. Thirumalai (US 2022/0046243), discloses compressing with reduced bit depth.
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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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 at (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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights