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
This communication is a Final office action in merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2024 and 6/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0154129 A1, Su et al. (hereinafter Su) in view of US 2018/0131959 A1, Chang et al. (hereinafter Chang).
As to claim 1, Su discloses an image processing apparatus, comprising:
a storage, configured to store a current frame and a reference frame; and
a processor, coupled to the storage (Fig 6), configured to execute the following operations:
downsizing the current frame and the reference frame to generate a down-sized current frame and a downsized reference frame respectively (Fig 4; pars 0038-0042, down-sampling the current frame and the reference frame respectively);
marking at least one of a plurality of first blocks in the down-sized current frame as at least one first periodic pattern block with at least one first label respectively (par0059, the block being labeled based on condition being met),
performing a first motion estimation on the down-sized current frame and the down-sized reference frame based on the at least one first label to generate a plurality of first motion vectors (Figs 2, 5, 7, perform motion estimation on the down-sized current and reference frames; pars 0006-0010, 0022, 0024-0028);
marking at least one of a plurality of n-th blocks in the current frame as at least one n-th block with at least one n-th label respectively (pars 0048, 0058-0059, the labeling blocks based on meeting preset condition),
performing an n-th motion estimation on the current frame and the reference frame based on the first motion vectors and the at least one n-th label to generate a plurality of n-th motion vectors (Figs 2, 4, 7; pars 0006-0009, 0025-0032, 0043, 0048, motion estimation of the original image of the current frame may be determined based on estimated motion vectors of the down sampled fame).
Su does not expressly disclose the frames being divided into different blocks based on their periodic patterns, wherein the at least one n-th periodic pattern block has a n-th periodic feature; and performing a motion compensation on the current frame and the reference frame based on the n-th motion vectors to generate a compensated frame between the current frame and the reference frame.
Chang, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the at least one first periodic pattern block has a first periodic feature and periodic pattern, or the at least one n-th periodic pattern block has a n-th periodic feature (Figs 3-5; pars 0003-0007, 0013-0017, periodic blocks being divided based on periodic patterns and/or features); performing a motion compensation on the current frame and the reference frame based on the n-th motion vectors to generate a compensated frame between the current frame and the reference frame (Figs 1-2; pars 0003, 0028-0029, motion compensation being achieved via interpolation or accurate motion vector and motion estimation to improve image quality of a video including periodic pattern).
Therefore, consider Su and Chang’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Chang’s teachings in Su’s apparatus to provide motion estimation based on different patterns and features in repetitive or periodic characteristics.
As to claim 5, Su as modified discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the n-th motion estimation comprises a plurality of a plurality of scanning operations, and the scanning operations further comprises:
generating a searching window corresponding to each of the n-th blocks in the current frame (Su: pars 0022, 0031, 0033-0034, 0036, 0046, determining a search range or area);
generating a plurality of candidate vectors in the searching window (Chang: Fig 3; pars 0005-0006, 0013, 0016-0020); and
selecting then-th motion vectors corresponding to each of the at least one n-th periodic pattern block from the candidate vectors (Chang: par 0028, claim 8).
As to claim 10, Su as modified discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the operation of marking the at least one of the n-th blocks in the current frame as the at least one n-th periodic pattern block with the at least one n-th label respectively but does not expressly teach performing an OR operation on the at least one n-th label and the at least one first label to update the at least one n-th label. However, grouping or combining (e.g. OR operations) labels for objects with similar class, characters, patterns, or features is a common practice in the field (e.g. group labeling or class labeling), see a listed but not cited reference (US 2018/0342073, Matsumura et al.).
As to claim 11, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
As to claim 20, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Chang and further in view of US 2015/0003528 A1, Toichi (hereinafter Toichi).
As to claim 2, Su as modified discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the operation of marking the at least one first periodic pattern block and
determining whether to mark the pixels as the at least one first periodic pattern block or not based on a minimum difference of the differences and a threshold (Su: pars 0050-0051, 0054-0055, 0076), but does not expressly teach determination is via comparing a plurality of pixels and a plurality of shifted pixels in the down-sized current frame to calculate a plurality of differences, wherein the shifted pixels are the pixels after being shifted based on a plurality of different shifting values, and each of the differences is corresponding to one of the different shifting values.
Toichi, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches determination is via comparing a plurality of pixels and a plurality of shifted pixels in the down-sized current frame to calculate a plurality of differences (pars 0007, 0040, 0056-0059, 0063-0064), wherein the shifted pixels are the pixels after being shifted based on a plurality of different shifting values, and each of the differences is corresponding to one of the different shifting values (pars 0056-0059, 0063-0065, 0108).
Therefore, consider Su as modified and Toichi’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Toichi’s teachings in Su as modified’s apparatus to properly mark or label the blocks by properly align image blocks.
As to claim 12, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-9, 13-14, 16-19 are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Su, Chang, and Toichi) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features as recited in claims 3-4, and claim 6, respectively. Claims 7-9 depend from claim 6. Claims 13-14 recite similar limitations as claims 3-4. Claims 17-19 recite similar limitations as claims 7-9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues Su merely discloses/teaches determining the target block and motion vector corresponding to down-sampled image of a current frame, not the one with original image of the current frame. Examiner would like to point out that the Su does teaches the determining he motion vector of the target block with respect to original image of the current frame and/or reference frame (see additional citations and discussions in merit rejection above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights