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
The amendments to the claims, filed on 05/15/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 3-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments is below.
Applicant’s Arguments (Emphasis Added):
A. Regarding Independent claim 1, the Applicant argues that Choi’s St,k is not an index because St,k is the temporal sampling ratio itself whereas the claims signal an index and derive the ratio therefrom. See Remarks, p. 6-7 of 9.
B. Regarding Independent claims 8 and 15, the Applicant argues the same as mention-above for Independent claim 1.
B. Regarding Dependent claim 2, the Applicant argues that the claim should be patentable based on the dependency of claim 1.
Examiner’s Response (Emphasis Added):
A. Regarding the arguments for Independent claim 1, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim 1 claims that when the index > 0; the temporal restoration is enabled and the temporal resampling ratio (M+1) = the index +1 = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, …
In the reference Choi [para. 0138], the ratio St,k is disclosed as ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion. If the value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’ ‘where St,k indicates a temporal sampling ratio for layer k’. That means when St,k = 0, -1, -2, …, a frame down conversion is performed by ratio 0, -1, -2, ... However, when St,k = 0, it is well understood that the ratio of the frame resampling is unchanged, i.e. no temporal resampling.
Therefore, when Choi’s St,k =0, no the temporal resampling is performed, i.e. the temporal restoration is disabled.
B. Regarding the arguments for Independent claims 8 and 15, Examiner’s responses are the same as mentioned above for claim 1.
B. Regarding the arguments for Dependent claim 2, Examiner’s responses are the same as mentioned above for claim 1.
Therefore, the claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 stand rejected. See the rejections below
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, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (“Choi”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0366911 A1] in view of mathematical obviousness
Regarding claim 1, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for decoding a coded video bitstream, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a device [Fig. 4: ‘The video decoder (410)’] comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory [para. 0108, 0117: ‘one or more processors that execute software instructions’], a coded video bitstream;
extracting, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a syntax (i.e. ‘The coded video sequence may conform to a syntax’) [para. 0067, 0092, 0112: ‘nuh_temporal_idflus1’ indicating ‘temporal layer of a coded picture’] indicating a temporal restoration (i.e. temporal upsampling in light of Spec [para. 0068]) mode (i.e. ‘St,k’) [para. 0125, 0138: ‘If both values of … are the greater than 1, the resampling process can be an up-sampling process’; ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion. If the value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’], wherein the syntax comprises:
an index only, the index (i.e. ‘St,k’) indicating whether the temporal restoration is enabled [para. 0138: disclosing mathematically when St,k is 0, there is no temporal restoration] and one temporal resampling ratio of at least one temporal resampling ratios (i.e. ‘F*St,k’) [para. 0138: ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion. If the value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’ ‘where St,k indicates a temporal sampling ratio for layer k’]; and
when the temporal restoration is enabled, restoring, by the device, reconstructed [Fig. 4, 7, 12; para. 0125, 0137-0138, 0161: ‘At step (S1220), the process (1200) reconstructs one of the plurality of sub-pictures’] frames to obtain restored frames based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio (i.e. ‘F*St,k’) [para. 0125, 0138: ‘If both values of … are the greater than 1, the resampling process can be an up-sampling process’],
wherein:
when the index is zero [para. 0125, 0138: ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame rate up conversion’ and ‘if a value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’. It is obviously understood: If St,k =0 or 1, resampling is disable], the temporal restoration is disable,
when the index is larger than zero, the temporal restoration is enabled [para. 0125, 0138: ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion’], and
the temporal resampling ratio is (M + 1) or 2^(M+ 1), wherein M is an unsigned integer value of the index (For (M+1), It is understood: M= 0, 1, 2, 3, ….; the temporal resampling ratio is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …. Note: the value of the index M=0 (the limitation “when the index is zero” is met); the resampling ratio = 1, equivalently no temporal restoration) [para. 0138: if St,k =0 or 1, no change in frame rate (i.e. no temporal resampling); if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion‘ (i.e. the temporal frame up ratio = 2, 3, 4, .. which is also the outcome of the limitation (M+1)’. Choi’s teaching of St,k obviously discloses the temporal resampling ratio (M+1)].
Regarding claim 8, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of ‘A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions’ and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Dane et al (“Dane”) [US 2006/0039471 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Choi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method according to claim 1, wherein the restoring reconstructed frames to obtain restored frames based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio comprises: performing, based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio, frame interpolation based on the reconstructed frames to generate frames to be added with the reconstructed frames to obtain the restored frames.
However in the same field of endeavor Dane discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the restoring reconstructed frames to obtain restored frames based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio comprises: performing, based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio, frame interpolation [Fig. 2: F2; para. 0005: ‘frame interpolation, also known as frame rate up conversion (FRUC), is typically used at the decoder to interpolate the content of intentionally skipped frames’] based on the reconstructed frames (i.e. ‘F1’ and ‘F3’) [Fig. 2] to generate frames [Fig. 2: ‘F2’] to be added with the reconstructed frames to obtain the restored frames.
Choi and Dane are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi and Dane as motivation to include frame interpolation for increasing the frame rate is increased in accordance with the video standards [Dane: para. 0004].
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 extension fee 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 PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights