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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 10/16/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2025 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 17-24, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 20060008147 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Jung et al. teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform (Paragraphs 129-130) the following:
determining, according to domain image blocks of a target image block in a video frame, whether the target image block belongs to a candidate caption region (Paragraph 37);
in response to determining that the target image block belongs to the candidate caption region, generating a pixel histogram of the target image block (Paragraphs 88-89);
determining, according to the pixel histogram of the target image block, a region type to which the target image block belongs (Paragraphs 85-94; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraph 128);
wherein the region type is a caption region or a non-caption region (Paragraphs 11-12); and
determining, according to the region type to which the target image block belongs, a target coding mode for the target image block (Paragraphs 85-94; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraph 128).
Regarding Claim 19, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform the following: determining a histogram distribution range of the target image block according to the pixel histogram of the target image block, wherein a proportion of pixels belonging to the histogram distribution range and in the target image block is greater than a preset proportion threshold; determining a length of the histogram distribution range; and determining the region type to which the target image block belongs according to the length of the histogram distribution range (Paragraphs 85-98; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraph 128).
Regarding Claim 20, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 19, wherein the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform the following: in response to determining that the length of the histogram distribution range is less than a preset length threshold, determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the caption region; or in response to determining that the length of the histogram distribution range is equal to or greater than a preset length threshold, determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the non-caption region (Paragraphs 85-98; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraphs 122-128).
Regarding Claim 21, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform the following: determining pixel variances of the domain image blocks respectively; averaging the pixel variances to obtain a pixel variance average value of the target image block; and in response to determining that the pixel variance average value of the target image block is greater than a preset variance threshold, taking the target image block as the candidate caption region (Paragraphs 85-98; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraphs 108-116; Paragraphs 122-128).
Method claims 1-4 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus of claims 17 and 19-21 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 18 and 26-28 are similar to claims 17 and 19-21 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Jung et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a method (Paragraphs 129-130).
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) 5-8 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20060008147 A1) in view of Cote et al. (US 20160014421 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform the following: in response to determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the caption region, encoding the target image block in candidate coding modes to obtain candidate coding results corresponding to the candidate coding modes, and determining the target coding mode from the candidate coding modes for the target image block according to the candidate coding results (Paragraphs 85-98; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraphs 108-116; Paragraphs 122-128).
However, Jung et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the candidate coding modes at least comprises an (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode.
Cote et al. further teaches that the candidate coding modes at least comprises an (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode (Paragraphs 131-132; Paragraphs 136-138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the caption coding of Jung et al. to include (N x N) intra-frame prediction as in Cote et al. in order to achieve better quality results for high-text image data (See Cote et al. Paragraph 196).
Regarding Claim 23, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform the following: in response to determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the non-caption region; encoding the target image block in remaining candidate coding modes to obtain candidate coding results corresponding to the remaining candidate coding modes; and determining the target coding mode for the target image block according to the candidate coding results corresponding to the remaining candidate coding modes (Paragraphs 85-98; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraphs 108-116; Paragraphs 122-128).
However, Jung et al. does not explicitly teach , determining whether the target image block meets a skip condition for the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode according to the target image block and the domain image blocks; in response to determining that the target image block meets the skip condition for the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode, removing the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode from the candidate coding modes.
Cote et al., however, teaches determining whether the target image block meets a skip condition for the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode according to the target image block and the domain image blocks; in response to determining that the target image block meets the skip condition for the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode, removing the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode from the candidate coding modes; encoding the target image block in remaining candidate coding modes to obtain candidate coding results corresponding to the remaining candidate coding modes (Paragraphs 131-135; Paragraphs 136-138; Paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the caption coding of Jung et al. to include (N x N) intra-frame prediction as in Cote et al. in order to achieve better quality results for high-text image data (See Cote et al. Paragraph 196).
Regarding Claim 24, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 23, however, Jung et al. does not explicitly teach in response to determining that the target image block does not meet the skip condition for the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode, retaining the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode in the candidate coding modes.
Cote et al., however, teaches in response to determining that the target image block does not meet the skip condition for the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode, retaining the (N x N) intra-frame prediction mode in the candidate coding modes (Paragraphs 131-135; Paragraphs 136-138; Paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the caption coding of Jung et al. to include (N x N) intra-frame prediction as in Cote et al. in order to achieve better quality results for high-text image data (See Cote et al. Paragraph 196).
Regarding Claim 25, Jung et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform the following: in response to determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the caption region, adjusting the target image block; in response to determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the non-caption region, adjusting the target image block; and encode, based on the target coding mode, the target image block (Paragraphs 85-98; Paragraphs 99-107; Paragraphs 108-116; Paragraphs 122-128).
However, Jung et al. does not explicitly teach adjusting a quantization parameter of the target image block by reducing the quantization parameter by a first offset; adjusting the quantization parameter of the target image block by increasing the quantization parameter by a second offset, wherein the first offset is greater than the second offset; and encode, based on the target coding mode, the target image block using the adjusted quantization parameter.
Cote et al., however, teaches performing: in response to determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the caption region, adjusting a quantization parameter of the target image block by reducing the quantization parameter by a first offset; in response to determining that the region type to which the target image block belongs is the non-caption region, adjusting the quantization parameter of the target image block by increasing the quantization parameter by a second offset, wherein the first offset is greater than the second offset; and encode, based on the target coding mode, the target image block using the adjusted quantization parameter (Paragraphs 151-154; Paragraphs 176-177; Paragraphs 186-190).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the caption coding of Jung et al. to include adjusting quantization parameters as in Cote et al. in order to achieve better quality results for high-text image data (See Cote et al. Paragraph 196).
Method claims 5-8 are drawn to the method of using the apparatus of claims 22-25 and are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483