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
1. 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.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Belle US 20160295158 (hereinafter Van)in view of LIU US 20250142094 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim1, Van provides for, acquiring a video frame to be processed ( Fig.1, [0144], see “Here a broadcast standard interlaced full HD video source is applied as input to an image processing chain”) ;
inputting the video frame to be processed into an image processing model to obtain a target video frame corresponding to the video frame to be processed ( see [0144], see “A first processing block reconstructs the missing chroma samples, then a de-interlacing circuit recovers the missing lines and eventually the source resolution (1920×1080 pixels) is converted to the native display resolution (1280×720 pixels))”; wherein the image processing model comprises an anti-aliasing operator for processing the video frame to be processed ( see [0024], see “Applying an anti-aliasing filter, either by pre-processing the source data or by lowering the cut-off frequency determined by the poly-phase filter's impulse response, can remove the disturbing beat patterns at the expense of even more sharpness loss”) , and the anti-aliasing operator comprises an anti-aliasing up-sampling operator, an anti-aliasing nonlinear operator, and an anti-aliasing down-sampling operator ( see Fig.26, [0168], see “The dotted curve reflects the stretched impulse response needed to perform a down sampling operation in case the original chroma channel sample rate is doubled by the chroma up-sampling process”). Van does not provide for a nonlinear operator and obtaining a target video by splicing a plurality of target video frames. Liu teaches the above missing limitations of Van, see [0075] of Liu, see “[0075] In this embodiment, in order to satisfy the needs of video processing, it is also necessary to perform linear processing on the first non-linear video frames to generate the corresponding first linear video frames”, further Liu teaches “[0078] In an embodiment, the first linear video frames and the third linear video frames are spliced to acquire first linear target video frames adopting the first color space gamut”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Liu with the system and method of Van, in order to obtain the claimed invention, by preventing the color difference in the spliced videos of the current video processing methods, a finding that one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, that the result of the combination were predictable ( MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11-12, see the rejection of claim 1. They recite similar limitations as claim 1. Except for a processor , a program and a storage medium (see “[0071] In a fourth aspect of the invention a computer program product, operable on a processing engine, for executing any of the method claims discussed and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing the computer program products”). Hence, they are similarly analyzed and rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 2-9 and 14-22 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.
Reasons for Allowance
3. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of Van Belle US 20160295158 in view of LIU US 20250142094, failed to teach or suggest for features/limitations of claims 2-9 and 14-22.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WEDI US 20130129236, is cited because the reference teaches “In the case where the input image contains video frequencies which are higher than the Nyquist frequency of the sampling unit 120, aliasing, that is, folding noise occurs in the sampled image. This can be avoided by an anti-aliasing filter (folding noise prevention filter) 110 as shown in FIG. 1B. The anti-aliasing filter 110 is a low-pass filter which removes video frequencies exceeding the Nyquist frequency before the sampling. Hence, the conventional image acquisition and reproduction apparatus shown in FIG. 1B outputs an image 190 free of folding noise”, see [0008].
Shin et al. US 20110069763 A1, is cited because the reference teaches “[0009] The down-sampling method may apply an anti-aliasing filter to an original image to prevent any occurrence of aliasing in a frequency domain, and may decimate pixels in accordance with a ratio of the down-sampling, when a filtering using the anti-aliasing filter is completed”.
Chen et al. US 20140376612, is cited because the reference teaches “applying to the progressive input video a single, low-pass, vertical filtering process to reduce anti-aliasing artifacts due to the down-sampling process. Because such filtering is applied only to the base layer, the decoder can never fully restore the lost high frequencies from the original progressive signal, and the reconstructed progressive output may lose sharpness and fine detail. Embodiments of the present invention overcome these limitations by utilizing a combination of vertical and horizontal pre-processing in the base and the enhancement layers, respectively. By preserving high-frequency content in both the horizontal and vertical directions, compared to the prior art, embodiments provide better picture quality in the reconstructed progressive picture”, see [0020].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights