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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2021/0327022 A1, referred to herein as “Yu”) and Schewior et al. (WO 2023/174546 A1, referred to herein as “Schewior”).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses: An image processing apparatus (Yu: paragraph [0006]), comprising:
a storage, configured to store a current frame and a reference frame (Yu: Fig. 1, paragraph [0019], disclosing a buffer to store image data); and
a processor, coupled to the storage, configured to execute the following operations (Yu: paragraph [0019], disclosing a processor for image processing):
downsizing the current frame and the reference frame to generate a down-sized current frame and a down-sized reference frame respectively (Yu: Fig. 3, paragraph [0025], disclosing that the current frame and the reference frame are downsized to generate layers of current frames and layers of reference frames);
performing a first motion estimation on the down-sized current frame and the down-sized reference frame to generate a plurality of first motion vectors… (Yu: Fig. 3, paragraph [0027], disclosing that a first motion estimation is performed on a current block of a first layer—e.g., the downsized current frame) and a reference block of the first layer—e.g., the downsized reference frame);
performing an n-th motion estimation on the current frame and the reference frame based on the first motion vectors… to generate a plurality of n-th motion vectors… (Yu: Fig. 3, paragraph [0047], disclosing that motion estimation is performed on the current and reference frames to generate a plurality of nth motion vectors); and
generating a compensated frame between the current frame and the reference frame based on the n-th motion vectors… (Yu: Fig. 2, paragraphs [0018]-[0022] and [0047], disclosing generation of a compensated frame between the current frame and the reference frame based on the motion vectors).
Yu does not explicitly disclose generating a first reliability corresponding to the first motion vectors, performing motion estimation based on the first reliability to generate a n-th reliability corresponding to the n-th motion vectors, and generating a compensated frame based on the n-th reliability.
However, Schewior discloses generating a first reliability corresponding to the first motion vectors (Schewior: page 5, lines 18-21 and page 7, lines 20-27, disclosing that reliability factors for motion vectors may be generated), performing motion estimation based on the first reliability to generate a n-th reliability corresponding to the n-th motion vectors (Schewior: page 5, lines 22-24 and page 7, lines 29-34 through page 8, lines 1-2, disclosing motion estimation based on the motion vectors and associated reliability factors), and generating a compensated frame based on the n-th reliability (Schewior: page 5, lines 22-24 and page 10, lines 1-4, disclosing generation of a compensated frame based on weighted motion vectors with a respective reliability factor).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the motion vector reliability of Schewior in the image processing apparatus of Yu.
One would have been motivated to modify Yu in this manner in order to improve the quality of the motion vectors and thus overcome imaging sensor limitations and boost the final image quality (Schewior: page 3, lines 22-34 through page 4, lines 1-8 and page 6, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 2, Yu and Schewior disclose: The image processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the operation of performing the first motion estimation comprises: calculating the first reliability based on the first motion vectors and a plurality of sum of absolute differences corresponding to the first motion vectors, wherein the sum of absolute differences and the first reliability are positively related (Schewior: page 9, lines 1-16, disclosing that the reliability factor for a motion vector can be determined using a sum of absolute differences corresponding to motion vectors).
The motivation for combining Yu and Schewior has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Yu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose calculating the first reliability based on a regional motion vector, a global motion vector, the first motion vectors, and the sum of absolute differences, wherein a first relation between the first motion vectors and the regional motion vector and the first reliability are positively related, and a second relation between the first motion vectors and the global motion vector and the first reliability are positively related.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Yu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose generating an intermediate reliability based on the n-th motion vectors; and generating the n-th reliability based on the first reliability and the intermediate reliability, wherein the first reliability and the n-th reliability are positively related, and the intermediate reliability and the n-th reliability are positively related.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15-16, Yu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose calculating a plurality of matching degrees of a plurality of candidate vectors; and taking one of the candidate vectors corresponding to a highest matching degree of the matching degrees as one of the n-th motion vectors.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Yu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose calculating a searching window size based on the first reliability, wherein the first reliability is linearly related to the searching window size; and generating a plurality of candidate vectors in a searching window having the searching window size.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 18-20, Yu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose selecting one of the current frame and the reference frame as a compensation target; and performing a motion compensation based on the compensation target, the n-th reliability, and the n-th motion vectors to generate the compensated frame corresponding to the compensation target, wherein the n-th reliability is negatively related to a similarity between the compensated frame and the compensation target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights