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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues US 2015/0243200 (hereinafter “Pan”) and US 2024/0373059 (hereinafter “Xiu”) fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the Applicant argues (1) Pan fails to teach or suggest the limitation “decode the video content based on the one or more viewing conditions…” and “adapt at least one aspect of the decoding based on the one or more viewing conditions” and (2) Xiu fails to teach or suggest “the at least one aspect of the decoding process comprises an optical flow-based refinement”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Pan, the server/encoder may take into account display panel characteristics, viewer location with respect to the target display panel and other ambient environment conditions at the display panel when processing and encoding (paragraph 58). From Figure 1, the decoding/display pipeline 130 receives and adaptively decodes bitstream 112 which is video content based on one or more viewing conditions.
In regards to Xiu not teaching “the at least one aspect of the decoding process comprises an optical flow-based refinement” the Examiner disagrees. Xiu discloses that it is known in the art for a decoding aspect such as optical flow-based refinement (PROF) to be adaptable. The system adapts PROF by enabling the process or disabling the process (paragraph 193). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Xiu discloses adapting an aspect of the decoding that comprises optical flow-based refinement.
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, 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) 1, 3, 10, 12-13, 15, 22, 24, 38, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2015/0243200) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2024/0373059).
Regarding claim 1 Pan discloses a video decoding device, comprising:
a processor (processor – [0106, 0147]) configured to:
obtain a video content (receive and decode an encoded video stream – Figure 5, step 500);
determine one or more viewing conditions associated with the video content (obtain environment information – Figure 5, step 506), wherein the one or more viewing conditions comprises one or more of a distance between a viewer of the video content and a display device for the video content, a viewing angle of the viewer towards the display device, a size or resolution of the display device, a peak luminance of the display device, an average luminance of the display device, or an ambient light level in a vicinity of the viewer or the display device (the viewer metrics such as viewer location relative to the display panel, size of the display panel, and distance to the display panel – [0051]); and
decode the video content based on the one or more viewing conditions, wherein the processor is configured to adapt at least one aspect of the decoding based on the one or more viewing conditions (the server/encoder may take into account display panel characteristics, viewer location with respect to the target display panel and other ambient environment conditions at the display panel when processing and encoding – [0058]; From Figure 1, the decoding/display pipeline 130 receives and adaptively decodes bitstream 112 which is video content based on one or more viewing conditions).
However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one aspect of the decoding comprises an optical flow-based refinement.
In his disclosure Xiu teaches the at least one aspect of the decoding comprises an optical flow-based refinement (the decoding process includes determining whether an LIC flag is on and the next step is taken according to that determination; when LIC flag is not set the application of PROF is performed – [0193]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Xiu into the teachings of Pan because such incorporation facilitates hardware codec implementations (paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 3 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 1 wherein to adapt the at least one aspect of the decoding based on the one or more viewing conditions comprises the processor being configured to:
obtain information that indicates at least one of a quality impact or a complexity impact associated with adopting the at least one aspect of the decoding, a media environment in which the video content is consumed using a camera or sensor installed in the media environment, or whether the video decoding device is allowed to adapt the at least one aspect of the decoding; and adapt the at least one aspect of the decoding further based on the obtained information (using information from sensors to adjust an aspect of decoding – [0039], Figure 5; using sensors such as cameras to collect data from the ambient environment and determine environment metric – [0051, 0056, 0064]).
Regarding claim 10 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 1. Pan further discloses that the processor is configured to adjust aspects of decoding based on one or more viewing conditions (paragraphs 39, 51, 56, 64).
However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical flow-based refinement comprises at least one of a bi-directional optical flow or a prediction refinement with an optical flow for the video content, and wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether to apply at least one of the bi-directional optical flow or the prediction refinement with the optical flow for the video content.
In his disclosure Xiu teaches wherein the optical flow-based refinement comprises at least one of a bi-directional optical flow or a prediction refinement with an optical flow for the video content, and wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether to apply at least one of the bi-directional optical flow or the prediction refinement with the optical flow for the video content (the decoding process includes determining whether an LIC flag is on and the next step is taken according to that determination; when LIC flag is not set the application of PROF is performed – [0193]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Xiu into the teachings of Pan because such incorporation facilitates hardware codec implementations (paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 12 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 1, wherein the at least one aspect of the decoding adapted by the processor comprises the processor being further configured to: reconstruct the video content from a standard dynamic range (SDR) to a high dynamic range (Figure 8 shows a video reconstruction from SDR to HDR).
Claim 13 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 15 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 22 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 10. Therefore, claim 22 is not being evaluated for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim 24 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 12. Therefore, claim 24 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 12.
Claim 38 corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions for video decoding, the instructions causing a processor to perform the method of claim 13 in the decoding device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 38 is being rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 13.
Claim 39 corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions for video decoding, the instructions causing a processor to perform the method of claim 10 in the decoding device of claim 22. Therefore, claim 39 is not being evaluated for the same reasons as claims 10 and 22.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2015/0243200) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2024/0373059) further in view of Greenebaum et al. (US 2016/0358584).
Regarding claim 2 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 1. Pan discloses aspects of the decoding adapted comprises noise/artifacts reduction, scaling and sharpening, frame rate conversion, display management, gamut and tone mapping and based on viewing conditions, makes a determination on whether to apply at least one of the noise/artifacts reduction, scaling and sharpening, frame rate conversion, display management, gamut and tone mapping (Figure 5; paragraph [0052]).
However, Pan fails to explicitly disclose the at least one aspect of the decoding adapted further comprises at least one of a luma mapping, a chroma mapping, or a chroma residual scaling and wherein the processor is configured to: based on the one or more viewing conditions, determine whether to apply at least one of the chroma mapping, the luma mapping, or the chroma residual scaling.
In his disclosure Greenebaum teaches the at least one aspect of the decoding adapted further comprises at least one of a luma mapping, a chroma mapping, or a chroma residual scaling and wherein the processor is configured to: based on the one or more viewing conditions, determine whether to apply at least one of the chroma mapping, the luma mapping, or the chroma residual scaling (luma mapping by mapping component 284 – [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Greenebaum into the teachings of Pan because such incorporation may provide improved viewing in different environments and/or under different ambient conditions (paragraph [0029]).
Claim 14 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2015/0243200) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2024/0373059) further in view of Rosewarne (US 2017/0034520).
Regarding claim 5 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 3. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information is obtained in a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message.
In his disclosure Rosewarne teaches the information is obtained in a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (ambient viewing parameter message is generally coded as a supplementary enhancement information (SEI) message in the encoded bitstream – [0051, 0107-0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Rosewarne into the teachings of Pan because such incorporation offers improved subjective quality for the human observer (paragraph [0104]).
Claim 17 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2015/0243200) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2024/0373059) further in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0314579).
Regarding claim 9 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 1. Pan further discloses the processor determines, based on the one or more viewing conditions, whether to perform or not a noise/artifact reduction (filtering) (paragraph [0031, 0039]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose to disable a cross component adaptive loop filter to the video content.
In his disclosure Hu teaches it is known in the art to disable a cross component adaptive loop filter to the video content (video decoder may be configured to bypass parsing of information indicative of cross component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) for one or more blocks based on CCALF being disabled for the one or more blocks and reconstruct the one or more blocks – [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hu into the teachings of Pan because the enabling/disabling of a CCALF is a common practice in the art.
Claim 21 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 9. Therefore, claim 21 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2015/0243200) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2024/0373059) further in view of Chong et al. (US 2012/0287988).
Regarding claim 11 Pan discloses the video decoding device of claim 1. Pan discloses aspects of the decoding being adapted by a processor and based on the one or more viewing conditions, determines to apply the aspect of the decoding (refer to rejection of claim 1).
However, fails to explicitly disclose an aspect of decoding comprises at least one of a bi-prediction or a uni-prediction to the video content, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to apply the bi- prediction or the uni-prediction to the video content.
In his disclosure Chong teaches it is known in the art of video coding for an aspect of decoding to comprise at least one of a bi-prediction or a uni-prediction to the video content, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to apply the bi- prediction or the uni-prediction to the video content (a prediction type is sent to the decoder, using a pred_type flag – [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chong into the teachings of Pan because the signaling of prediction types is a common practice in the art.
Claim 23 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 11. Therefore, claim 23 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 11.
Claim(s) 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2015/0243200) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2024/0373059) further in view of Lee (US Patent No. 10,146,996).
Regarding claim 40 Pan discloses the decoding device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to adjust the decoding of the video content based on the projected angle of the video content onto the viewer (the video processing functions may be adjusted at least in part based on one or more viewer characteristics such as location, distance, and viewing angle with respect to the display panel as detected by the sensor(s) – [0056]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose determine whether a human face is detected in a viewing environment, wherein to determine whether the human face is detected comprises the processor being configured to detect whether pupils are detected using an interpupillary distance; based on a determination that the human face is detected in the viewing environment, determine a projected angle of the video content onto the pupils.
In his disclosure Lee teaches determine whether a human face is detected in a viewing environment, wherein to determine whether the human face is detected comprises the processor being configured to detect whether pupils are detected using an interpupillary distance; based on a determination that the human face is detected in the viewing environment, determine a projected angle of the video content onto the pupils (a control unit coupled to the display unit, the camera, and the photo sensor, wherein the control unit comprises: a viewing angle determining unit configured to identify a face of a user from an image photographed by the camera, to determine a point on the image corresponding to a center point between pupils of the user, and to determine a viewing angle of the user based on a distance between the point and a center of the image and a distance between the photo sensor and a window of the display unit – claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the teachings of Pan because such incorporation provides improved visibility (col.2, 48-52).
Claim 41 corresponds to the method performed by the video decoding device of claim 40. Therefore, claim 41 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 40.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights