DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1-3 contain the limitation, “which is a parameter for switching a resolution resampling process and an up-sampling process” It is unclear to the examiner the meaning of switching process A(resolution resampling process) and process B(up-sampling process). Is the switching between process A and process B or are we switching from one process to process A and process B?
Appropriate corrections are required.
Independent claims 1-3 contain the limitation, “if more than one supplemental enhancement information for a same picture is present, the more than one supplemental enhancement information has a same value of the parameter or different values of the parameter” It is unclear to the examiner the purpose and meaning of this limitation. The set of parameter values is the parameter value and not the parameter value which is what is essentially claims. The limitation simply states if supplemental enhancement information is present then it has a parameter value. The supplemental enhancement information by default must have a parameter value. The limitation is redundant as written.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won, US2019/0089987 in view of Da Silva Pratas Gabriel et al. US2021/0211643 hereinafter referred to as Da Silva.
As per Claim 1, Won teaches a video converting apparatus comprising:
a supplemental enhancement information decoder circuit that configured to decodes
supplemental enhancement information specifying a process of a switching including a
parameter, which is a parameter for switching an up-sampling process; (Won, Paragraph [0110], “In addition, the decoding apparatus 200 may parse and decode a flag indicating whether a divided image is an LR image (an image of which a resolution needs to be upscaled by n multiples) or an HR image (an image for which a resolution change is not necessary). When it is determined that the divided image is an LR image, the decoding apparatus 200 may parse and decode (222) metadata, upscale a resolution of the divided image by n multiples, and perform a super resolution process (223) which applies a filter coefficient which is metadata to the divided image having a resolution upscaled by n multiples”)
an up-sampling circuit that performs the up-sampling process based on the value of the
parameter; wherein (Won, Paragraph [0110], “In addition, the decoding apparatus 200 may parse and decode a flag indicating whether a divided image is an LR image (an image of which a resolution needs to be upscaled by n multiples)…When it is determined that the divided image is an LR image, the decoding apparatus 200 may parse and decode (222) metadata, upscale a resolution of the divided image by n multiples, and perform a super resolution process (223) which applies a filter coefficient which is metadata to the divided image having a resolution upscaled by n multiples”)
if more than one supplemental enhancement information for a same picture is present,
the more than one supplemental enhancement information has a same value of the parameter
or different values of the parameter. (Won, Paragraph [0110], “In addition, the decoding apparatus 200 may parse and decode a flag indicating whether a divided image is an LR image (an image of which a resolution needs to be upscaled by n multiples) or an HR image (an image for which a resolution change is not necessary). When it is determined that the divided image is an LR image, the decoding apparatus 200 may parse and decode (222) metadata, upscale a resolution of the divided image by n multiples…” The claim covers either same value or not the same value and therefore regardless of the value of Won, Won will read on the claim language as written)
Won does not explicitly teach for switching a resolution resampling process
a resolution processing circuit that performs the resolution resampling process based on
a value of the parameter; and
Da Silva teaches for switching a resolution resampling process
a resolution processing circuit that performs the resolution resampling process based on
a value of the parameter; and (Da Silva, Paragraph [0033], “Hence, the super-resolution prediction mode may use a downsampling scheme for downsampling and upsampling at block level, e.g. a single video block or a subset of all video blocks of a video frame (i.e. super resolution modes 1 and 2 of table 1), wherein a first parameter, e.g. a binary flag, may be used to signal whether a downsampling scheme is used. A second parameter may be used for signalling the type of downsampling scheme that is used (e.g. polyphase downsampling). The second parameter may only be present if a downsampling scheme is used. It is noted many other alternatives can be used, for instance only one flag, longer or shorter bit depth, etc”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Da Silva into Won because by utilizing flags as supplemental enhancement information will allow various processes to be performed such as resolution resampling/downsampling when the data requires it.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Claim 2 claims an image decoding apparatus containing the same components as the video converting apparatus claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As per Claim 3, Claim 3 claims an image coding apparatus containing the same components as the video converting apparatus claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights