DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
2. This office action for US Patent application 18/720,447 is responsive to communications filed on 10/30/2025, in response to the Non-Final Rejection of 07/02/2025. Currently, claims 1-24 are pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's Remarks see pages 7-13, with respect to the amendment and argument have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends and urges that Lou and Eddy are not combinable. The examiner respectively disagrees. In response to this argument, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Lou and Eddy's inventions are related to a method and a system of dithering of an image, thus the teachings of Eddy can be combined and included into the system of Lou to establish obviousness in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image.
4. In response to Applicant’s arguments relating establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (see pages 9-12: Applicant’s Remarks), the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
5. Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In view of the above arguments, the Examiner believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries 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.
9. Claim 1, 4-17, 20, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2015/0213750A1) (herein after Luo) in view of Eddy et al., (US 2011/0135011A1) (hereinafter Eddy).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a method of introducing dither to reduce banding artefacts in a digital image (e.g., see abstract; paragraph 0003; Fig. 1), the banding artefacts resulting from an operation applied to the digital image to reduce the pixel bit depth, the bit depth reduction produces a reduced bit depth version of the digital image which results in pixel information loss (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0018, 0020), the method comprising, prior to encoding the digital image:
applying a mask to the digital image (e.g., see abstract), the mask indicating a pattern for selective adjustment of the pixel values in the reduced bit depth version of the digital image (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraph 0026); and
for each pixel in the digital image:
determining the pixel's location in the mask (e.g., see Fig. 7, paragraphs 0041-0045);
if the mask pattern indicates selective adjustment then:
determining a pixel adjustment factor from the pixel information lost during the bit depth reduction; applying the pixel adjustment factor to the reduced bit depth version of the pixel (e.g., see paragraphs 0024-0026).
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask pattern indicates no selective adjustment for at least one pixel and indicates applying selective adjustment to at least one pixel in five in the horizontal direction, and at least one pixel in five in the vertical direction of the digital image.
However, Eddy discloses wherein the mask pattern indicates no selective adjustment for at least one pixel and indicates applying selective adjustment to at least one pixel in five in the horizontal direction, and at least one pixel in five in the vertical direction of the digital image (e.g., see Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Eddy as above, in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image (see abstract: Eddy).
Regarding claim 4, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the pixel adjustment factor is determined based on the value of the most significant bit of the pixel information lost during the bit depth reduction (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024, 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the pixel adjustment factor increases the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel by 1 when the most significant bit of the pixel information lost is 1, and the pixel adjustment factor makes no change when the most significant bit of the pixel information lost is 0 (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 6, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the pixel adjustment factor makes no change to the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel when the most significant bit of the pixel information lost is 1 and decreases the reduced bit depth version of the pixel by 1 when the most significant bit of the pixel information lost is 0 (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 7, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the pixel adjustment factor is determined based on a value of a single bit of the pixel information lost during the bit depth reduction regardless of the significance (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 8, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the pixel adjustment factor is determined based on the value of each bit lost during the bit depth reduction (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 9, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the influence of each bit lost during the bit depth reduction on the pixel adjustment factor is dependent on the significance of said bit (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 10, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein a more significant bit has a greater influence than a lower significant bit (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 11 Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses, wherein when the pixel adjustment factor is derived from two lost bits, the pixel adjustment factor causes the reduced bit depth pixel to be adjusted by a value in of one of the following adjustment groups: 1, 0, −1; and −2, −1, 0, 1 or 2 depending on the value of the pixel information lost during the bit depth reduction (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 12, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the pixel adjustment factor increases the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel by 1 when the two most significant bits of the pixel information lost are 10 and the pixel adjustment factor increases the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel by 2 when the two most significant bits of the pixel information lost are 11, and otherwise does not change the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel (e.g., see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0024-0026).
Regarding claim 13, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask indicates applying the pixel adjustment factor to one pixel in two in the horizontal direction, and one pixel in two in the vertical direction.
However, Eddy discloses wherein the mask indicates applying the pixel adjustment factor to one pixel in two in the horizontal direction, and one pixel in two in the vertical direction (e.g., see Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Eddy as above, in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image (see abstract: Eddy).
Regarding claim 14, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask indicates applying the pixel adjustment factor to one pixel in two in the horizontal direction, and one pixel in two in the vertical direction for a first portion of the digital image using a pixel adjustment pattern; and the mask indicates an inverse of the pixel adjustment pattern to be applied to a different second portion of the digital image.
However, Eddy discloses wherein the mask indicates applying the pixel adjustment factor to one pixel in two in the horizontal direction, and one pixel in two in the vertical direction for a first portion of the digital image using a pixel adjustment pattern; and the mask indicates an inverse of the pixel adjustment pattern to be applied to a different second portion of the digital image (e.g., see Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Eddy as above, in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image (see abstract: Eddy).
Regarding claim 15, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask pattern indicates multiple levels of selective adjustment, wherein each level of selective adjustment has a different influence on the likelihood of applying the pixel adjustment factor.
However, Eddy discloses wherein the mask pattern indicates multiple levels of selective adjustment, wherein each level of selective adjustment has a different influence on the likelihood of applying the pixel adjustment factor (e.g., see Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Eddy as above, in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image (see abstract: Eddy).
Regarding claim 16, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple levels signal three adjustment levels as follows: zero adjustment, first level adjustment, and second level adjustment.
However, Eddy discloses wherein the multiple levels signal three adjustment levels as follows: zero adjustment, first level adjustment, and second level adjustment (e.g., see Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Eddy as above, in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image (see abstract: Eddy).
Regarding claim 17, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the zero adjustment indicates no selective adjustment, the first level adjustment makes no change to when the pixel adjustment factor is applied and the second level adjustment increases the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel by 1 only when the two most significant bits of the pixel information lost are 11.
However, Eddy discloses wherein the zero adjustment indicates no selective adjustment, the first level adjustment makes no change to when the pixel adjustment factor is applied and the second level adjustment increases the value of the reduced bit depth version of the pixel by 1 only when the two most significant bits of the pixel information lost are 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Eddy as above, in order to provide systems and method are provided for adjusting certain pixel values in an image (see abstract: Eddy).
Regarding claim 20, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Luo discloses wherein the method comprises encoding, at a set of encoders, signals derived from the digital image and the reduced bit depth version of the digital image (e.g., see paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0024: reducing bit depth).
Regarding claim 23, this claim is a non-transitory computer program product claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the non-transitory computer program product performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Luo discloses a processor; and non-transitory computer readable memory (e.g., see Fig. 9, paragraphs 0054, 0060, 0061)
Regarding claim 24, this claim is a data processing apparatus claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the data processing apparatus performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Luo discloses a processor; and non-transitory computer readable memory (e.g., see Fig. 9, paragraphs 0054, 0060, 0061)
10. Claims 2-3, 18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2015/0213750A1) in view of Eddy et al., (US 2011/0135011A1) (cited by IDS), and further in view of Sun et al., (US 2009/0180555A1) (hereinafter Sun) (cited by IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo in view Eddy does not explicitly disclose wherein the bit depth reduction converts the bit depth of the pixels from a first bit depth to a second bit depth, wherein the difference between the first bit depth and the second bit depth is 2 bits.
However, Sun discloses wherein the bit depth reduction converts the bit depth of the pixels from a first bit depth to a second bit depth, wherein the difference between the first bit depth and the second bit depth is 2 bits (e.g., see paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo in view of Eddy to add the teachings of Sun as above, in order to provide improved techniques and tools for controlling artifacts in video (see abstract: Sun).
Regarding claim 3, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo in view Eddy does not explicitly disclose wherein the first bit depth is 10 bits and the second bit depth is 8 bits.
However, Sun discloses wherein the first bit depth is 10 bits and the second bit depth is 8 bits (e.g., see paragraph 0041: 8-bit and 10-bit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo to add the teachings of Sun as above, in order to provide improved techniques and tools for controlling artifacts in video (see abstract: Sun).
Regarding claim 18, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo in view Eddy does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is applied to at least one of the luminance values and the chrominance values of each pixel.
However, Sun discloses wherein the method is applied to at least one of the luminance values and the chrominance values of each pixel (e.g., see paragraphs 0043-0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo in view of Eddy to add the teachings of Sun as above, in order to provide improved techniques and tools for controlling artifacts in video (see abstract: Sun).
Regarding claim 22, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 20, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo in view Eddy does not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding at the set of encoders comprises encoding a signal derived from the digital image using a first encoding method and a single derived from the reduced bit depth version of the digital image using a second encoding method, wherein the first encoding method and the second encoding method are the same and wherein the first encoding method and the second encoding method generate at least part of a VC-6 encoded signal.
However, Sun discloses wherein the encoding at the set of encoders comprises encoding a signal derived from the digital image using a first encoding method and a single derived from the reduced bit depth version of the digital image using a second encoding method (e.g., see paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0015: bit depth), wherein the first encoding method and the second encoding method are the same and wherein the first encoding method and the second encoding method generate at least part of a VC-6 encoded signal (e.g., see paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0043, 0056: VC-1 or VC-6 encoder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo in view of Eddy to add the teachings of Sun as above, in order to provide improved techniques and tools for controlling artifacts in video (see abstract: Sun).
11. Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2015/0213750A1) in view of Eddy et al., (US 2011/0135011A1), and further in view of Grois et al., (US 2022/0103832A1) (hereinafter Grois).
Regarding claim 19, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo in view Eddy does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is performed as part of a hierarchical coding scheme.
However, Grois discloses wherein the method is performed as part of a hierarchical coding scheme (e.g., see Figs. 2A-2E, paragraphs 0036-0038: hierarchal structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo in view of Eddy to add the teachings of Grois as above, in order to provide methods and systems for optimized content encoding (see paragraph 0003: Grois).
Regarding claim 21, Luo and Eddy disclose all the limitations of claim 20, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Luo in view Eddy does not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding at the set of encoders comprises encoding a signal derived from the digital image using a first encoding method and a single derived from the reduced bit depth version of the digital image using a second encoding method, wherein the first encoding method and the second encoding method are different and output part of an LCEVC encoded signal.
However, Grois discloses wherein the encoding at the set of encoders comprises encoding a signal derived from the digital image using a first encoding method and a single derived from the reduced bit depth version of the digital image using a second encoding method, wherein the first encoding method and the second encoding method are different and output part of an LCEVC encoded signal (e.g., see paragraphs 0023, 0052: LCEVC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luo in view of Eddy to add the teachings of Grois as above, in order to provide methods and systems for optimized content encoding (see paragraph 0003: Grois).
Conclusion
12. 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 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486