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 Amendments
Claims 1-22 are cancelled.
New claims 23-42 are accepted and entered.
Claims 23-42 are pending regarding this application.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority benefits from EP22305512.0 filed on
04/08/2022. The certified copies of the priority documents were electronically retrieved on 05/16/2025.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025 is considered and attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), written description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Background
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“we are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims”). However, as discussed in subsection I., supra, the issue of a lack of adequate written description may arise even for an original claim when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. While it is not necessary for the examiner to present factual evidence, to make a prima facie case it is necessary to point out the claim limitations that are not adequately supported and explain any other reasons that the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure to show that the inventor had possession of the invention. See for example, Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, “does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc.v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Ralston Purina Co.v.Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In reKaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). See MPEP§ 2163 - https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html
Regarding claim 32 and 42, applicant claims “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer; model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution; and derive a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image”. However, applicant’s specification never describes the process of modelling behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels or explains the steps necessary in order to emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution. The only portion of the specification that discusses the above limitation is in para. [0138]. This section merely recites language similar to the claim language, and does not provide any insight regarding what the modeling entails or how the scans are emulated at a given resolution. Furthermore, it is unclear what “particle behavior” entails in the context of modelling particle behaviors at different exposure levels, and applicant’s specification fails to add context to the limitation by providing any information regarding for what purpose the particle behavior is modelled. Similarly, in regards to the emulated scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution, applicant’s specification fails to provide any information regarding how the emulated scans are utilized within the context of the claimed invention, specifically in order to derive a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer as recited in the claims. Additionally, it is unclear, from the aforementioned section(s) of applicant’s specification and the claim language, whether the modelled behavior and/or emulated scans are meant to be utilized in the derivation of the derived first and second grain images. If so, neither the claims nor the specification clearly explains the correlation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed.
Note: as a result of the 112(a) rejections in claims 32 and 42, a proper prior art search for the following limitations, “model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”, could not be conducted. However, claims 32 and 42 are included in the prior art rejections below using the examiner’s best judgement regarding the processes involved in “model[ing] behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulate[ing] scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), enablement
Claims 32 and 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 32 and 42, applicant claims “model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”. It is the Examiner’s position that the subject matter described above is not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, to make and use the invention, without undue experimentation.
In accordance with MPEP § 2164, the examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of lack of enablement. The question posed when making a lack of enablement rejection is: Is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? See Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916). The test for lack of enablement was established in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and set forth several factors which must be considered by the examiner when making a determination of lack of enablement. These factors can be found in MPEP § 2164.01(a). Furthermore, the examiner need not discuss every factor. The examiner need only to focus on those factors, reasons, and evidence that lead the examiner to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
In Re Wands Factors
B) The nature of the invention
The invention of the aforementioned claim is directed towards a method of encoding projection information of two-dimensional projections. The limitations in question are drawn towards “model[ing] behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulat[ing] scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”. Applicant’s disclosure generally says the modelled behavior and emulated scans can be determined using a computer model.
F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
As discussed above applicant has not provided any details on the aforementioned claim limitations. Regarding the claims, applicant has not described how the “model[ing] behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulate[ing] scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution” – is carried out. See para. [0124] and [0138] of the specification. These paragraphs merely recite language similar to the claim language. Applicant’s specification does not describe any of the steps necessary for carrying out the above limitations, nor does the applicant expand upon what the particle behavior entails or explain the context surrounding how the modelled behavior and emulated scans are utilized. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that much more information would be needed in order to use a computer model to “model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels” and “emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”.
G) The existence of working examples
There is neither mention of a working example, nor any example in any of the prior art.
H) The quantity of experimentation needed based on the disclosure
Since the invention as claimed is not described in detail in the specification, the amount of experimentation would be great in order to make/use the invention. As mentioned previously, applicant has not provided any direction on the above-mentioned claim limitation. Applicant merely discloses these limitations in passing in para. [0124] and [0138] of the specification and has not provided any disclosure on these limitations. In particular, applicant has not described anything capable of “model[ing] behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels” and “emulate[ing] scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”. Neither does applicant describe what the modelled behavior entails. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to figure out how to create the claimed invention. Therefore, since the specification provides no detail on how these claim limitations are made and used, the disclosure is non-enabling. See MPEP § 2164.06.
When considering all of the pertinent In re Wands factors, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the Examiner has reached the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, particularly since the amount of direction provided by the applicant is minimal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites “wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a target picture sample value”. However, claim 30, upon which claim 31 depends, already recites “wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a target picture sample value”. As a result, it is unclear whether the target picture sample value as recited in claim 31 is equivalent to or distinct from the target picture sample value in claim 30. Applicant discusses the above process in para. [0139]-[0142] of applicant’s specification. However, nowhere in these sections does applicant clarify whether the target picture sample value of claim 31 is equivalent to or distinct from the target picture sample value of claim 30. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 34-36, 38, 19, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radosavljevic et al. (“Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC”), hereinafter Radosavljevic.
Regarding claim 34, Radosavljevic teaches a method, comprising:
splitting an image into a plurality of blocks (Radosavljevic teaches computing 8x8 blocks within a decoded frame in FIG. 3, wherein “one can take advantage of the 8 × 8 block average and find the interval to which the average value of the currently processed 8 × 8 block belongs (the currently processed block is the block to which we add a film grain and is taken from the image we are processing - usually a decoded frame)” as shown in Section 3);
generating a set of correlated film grain patterns for a block of the plurality of blocks (Radosavljevic teaches a process of “generating a database of all available film grain blocks/patterns. In total, the database includes h×v×64×64 film grain samples (given the range of cut-off frequencies it leads to 13×13×64×64, see Section 2)” in Section 3. Here, since the database contains all available film grain blocks/patterns, it is inherent there exists, within said database, a set of correlated film grain patterns for an 8x8 block of the plurality of blocks as shown further in the citation below); and
selecting, from the set of correlated film grain patterns, a correlated film grain pattern to apply to a pixel of the block (Radosavljevic teaches that “in order to choose a particular pattern from film grain database, one can take advantage of the 8 × 8 block average and find the interval to which the average value of the currently processed 8 × 8 block belongs”, wherein, “based on the average value of the block, and intensity intervals received with FGC SEI (see Section 2), a selection of FGC parameters is performed. A selection includes the scaling parameter (comp_model_value[ c ][ i ][ 0 ]) and cut-off frequencies (comp_model_value[ c ][ i ][ 1 ] and comp_model_value[ c ][ i ][ 2 ]). Selected cut-off frequencies are used to access the film grain database. Thereafter, film grain is added to the image on 8 × 8 basis” in Section 3. Here, the selected film grains which are chosen based on the FGC parameters for each 8x8 block are interpreted as equivalent to the correlated film grain pattern to apply to a pixel of the block, as each block contains 8x8 pixels, so inherently the film grain is applied to at least a pixel of the block. See also FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 35, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34, wherein generating the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises
using a common random seed to generate each correlated film grain pattern in the set of correlated film grain patterns (Radosavljevic teaches that “a 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values denoted as B, undergoes a low-pass filtering. Each film grain pattern is synthesized using different pair of cut-off frequencies. Therefore, horizontal high cut-off frequency (noted Horizontal_Cutoff) and vertical high cut-off frequency (noted Vertical_Cutoff) define film grain pattern” in Section 3. Here, since the 64 x 64 block is made up of transformed pseudo-random values (common random seed) and the block is then used to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns as further shown in section 3 and claim 23, it is inherent that the random seed is used to generate each correlated film grain pattern in the set of correlated film grain patterns).
Regarding claim 36, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34, wherein generating the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises
applying a low-pass filter to a root noise pattern (Radosavljevic teaches “a 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values denoted as B, undergoes a low-pass filtering” in Section 3. Here, the 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed root noise pattern), wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using a different cutoff frequency for the low-pass filter (Radosavljevic teaches that “different film grain patterns (for different cut-off pairs) can be pre-computed, generating a database of all available film grain blocks/patterns” wherein “each film grain pattern is synthesized using different pair of cut-off frequencies” and “Low pass filtering is performed by setting to zero all coefficients of a block B in such way that x>Horizontal_Cutoff or y>Vertical_Cutoff leads to B[x, y] = 0, where x = {0, …, 63} and y = {0, …, 63} are horizontal and vertical coordinates within the block” in Section 3. Here, the correlated film grain patterns are generated using a different pairs of cutoff frequencies for the low pass filter).
Regarding claim 38, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34, wherein generating the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises
adding a set of grains at random locations from a first film grain pattern to a second film grain pattern (Radosavljevic teaches that “The process starts with creating a film grain pattern (block of 64 × 64 pixels) for all pairs of cut-off frequencies” wherein the block is defined by “pseudo-random numbers that follow the normalized Gaussian distribution N(0,1)” in Section 3. Furthermore, in section 3, Radosavljevic teaches that “a 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values denoted as B, undergoes a low-pass filtering. Each film grain pattern is synthesized using different pair of cut-off frequencies”. Here, the 64 x 64 block is interpreted as the set of grains at random locations, and the process synthesizing using the cut-off frequencies involves adding/subtracting low-pass filtered noise fields, which is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed process of adding a first film grain pattern to a second film grain pattern).
Regarding claim 39, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34,
wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a pixel value associated with the pixel of the block (Radosavljevic teaches “one can take advantage of the 8 × 8 block average and find the interval to which the average value of the currently processed 8 × 8 block belongs (the currently processed block is the block to which we add a film grain and is taken from the image we are processing - usually a decoded frame)” wherein “based on the average value of the block, and intensity intervals received with FGC SEI (see Section 2), a selection of FGC parameters is performed” as shown in Section 3. Here, since the average value of the block includes at least a pixel value associated with the pixel of the block, it is inherent that the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a pixel value associated with the pixel of the block).
Regarding claim 41, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34,
wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on
a target picture sample value,
a horizontal local average, or
a horizontal low-pass filter (Radosavljevic teaches a process wherein “selected cut-off frequencies are used to access the film grain database” and, in effect, select the correlated film grain pattern in Section 3. Here, the cut-off frequencies include a horizontal cut-off for a low pass filter as additionally shown in Section 3).
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.
Claims 23-25, 27, 28, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic et al. (“Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC”), hereinafter Radosavljevic in view of Schlockermann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0256853 A1), hereinafter Schlockermann.
Regarding claim 23, Radosavljevic teaches
split an image into a plurality of blocks (Radosavljevic teaches computing 8x8 blocks within a decoded frame in FIG. 3, wherein “one can take advantage of the 8 × 8 block average and find the interval to which the average value of the currently processed 8 × 8 block belongs (the currently processed block is the block to which we add a film grain and is taken from the image we are processing - usually a decoded frame)” as shown in Section 3);
generate a set of correlated film grain patterns for a block of the plurality of blocks (Radosavljevic teaches a process of “generating a database of all available film grain blocks/patterns. In total, the database includes h×v×64×64 film grain samples (given the range of cut-off frequencies it leads to 13×13×64×64, see Section 2)” in Section 3. Here, since the database contains all available film grain blocks/patterns, it is inherent there exists, within said database, a set of correlated film grain patterns for an 8x8 block of the plurality of blocks as shown further in the citation below); and
select, from the set of correlated film grain patterns, a correlated film grain pattern to apply to a pixel of the block (Radosavljevic teaches that “in order to choose a particular pattern from film grain database, one can take advantage of the 8 × 8 block average and find the interval to which the average value of the currently processed 8 × 8 block belongs”, wherein, “based on the average value of the block, and intensity intervals received with FGC SEI (see Section 2), a selection of FGC parameters is performed. A selection includes the scaling parameter (comp_model_value[ c ][ i ][ 0 ]) and cut-off frequencies (comp_model_value[ c ][ i ][ 1 ] and comp_model_value[ c ][ i ][ 2 ]). Selected cut-off frequencies are used to access the film grain database. Thereafter, film grain is added to the image on 8 × 8 basis” in Section 3. Here, the selected film grains which are chosen based on the FGC parameters for each 8x8 block are interpreted as equivalent to the correlated film grain pattern to apply to a pixel of the block, as each block contains 8x8 pixels, so inherently the film grain is applied to at least a pixel of the block. See also FIG. 3).
Radosavljevic fails to teach a device, comprising: a processor configured to….
However, Schlockermann teaches a device, comprising: a processor (Schlockermann teaches “a program for realizing the moving picture coding method and the moving picture decoding method shown in the above-described first embodiment makes it possible to cause an independent computer to execute the processing shown in the first embodiment” in para. [0152], wherein a processor may be used to carry out said embodiment as shown in para. [0184]. It should be noted that Schlockermann similarly teaches a process of coding pictures constituting a moving picture on a block-by-block basis by selecting correlating film grain patterns).
Radosavljevic and Schlockermann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to image blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic to incorporate the teachings of Schlockermann and include “a device, comprising: a processor”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “record[], on a recording medium such as a flexible disc, a program for realizing the moving picture coding method and the moving picture decoding method shown in the above-described first embodiment makes it possible to cause an independent computer to execute the processing shown in the first embodiment easily”, as suggested by Schlockermann in para. [0152]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic with Schlockermann to obtain the invention specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to
use a common random seed to generate each correlated film grain pattern in the set of correlated film grain patterns (Radosavljevic teaches that “a 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values denoted as B, undergoes a low-pass filtering. Each film grain pattern is synthesized using different pair of cut-off frequencies. Therefore, horizontal high cut-off frequency (noted Horizontal_Cutoff) and vertical high cut-off frequency (noted Vertical_Cutoff) define film grain pattern” in Section 3. Here, since the 64 x 64 block is made up of transformed pseudo-random values (common random seed) and the block is then used to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns as further shown in section 3 and claim 23, it is inherent that the random seed is used to generate each correlated film grain pattern in the set of correlated film grain patterns).
Regarding claim 25, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to
apply a low-pass filter to a root noise pattern (Radosavljevic teaches “a 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values denoted as B, undergoes a low-pass filtering” in Section 3. Here, the 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed root noise pattern), wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using a different cutoff frequency for the low-pass filter (Radosavljevic teaches that “different film grain patterns (for different cut-off pairs) can be pre-computed, generating a database of all available film grain blocks/patterns” wherein “each film grain pattern is synthesized using different pair of cut-off frequencies” and “Low pass filtering is performed by setting to zero all coefficients of a block B in such way that x>Horizontal_Cutoff or y>Vertical_Cutoff leads to B[x, y] = 0, where x = {0, …, 63} and y = {0, …, 63} are horizontal and vertical coordinates within the block” in Section 3. Here, the correlated film grain patterns are generated using a different pairs of cutoff frequencies for the low pass filter).
Regarding claim 27, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to
add a set of grains at random locations from a first film grain pattern to a second film grain pattern (Radosavljevic teaches that “The process starts with creating a film grain pattern (block of 64 × 64 pixels) for all pairs of cut-off frequencies” wherein the block is defined by “pseudo-random numbers that follow the normalized Gaussian distribution N(0,1)” in Section 3. Furthermore, in section 3, Radosavljevic teaches that “a 64 × 64 block of transformed pseudo-random values denoted as B, undergoes a low-pass filtering. Each film grain pattern is synthesized using different pair of cut-off frequencies”. Here, the 64 x 64 block is interpreted as the set of grains at random locations, and the process synthesizing using the cut-off frequencies involves adding/subtracting low-pass filtered noise fields, which is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed process of adding a first film grain pattern to a second film grain pattern).
Regarding claim 28, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23,
wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a pixel value associated with the pixel of the block (Radosavljevic teaches “one can take advantage of the 8 × 8 block average and find the interval to which the average value of the currently processed 8 × 8 block belongs (the currently processed block is the block to which we add a film grain and is taken from the image we are processing - usually a decoded frame)” wherein “based on the average value of the block, and intensity intervals received with FGC SEI (see Section 2), a selection of FGC parameters is performed” as shown in Section 3. Here, since the average value of the block includes at least a pixel value associated with the pixel of the block, it is inherent that the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a pixel value associated with the pixel of the block).
Regarding claim 30, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23,
wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on
a target picture sample value,
a horizontal local average, or
a horizontal low-pass filter (Radosavljevic teaches a process wherein “selected cut-off frequencies are used to access the film grain database” and, in effect, select the correlated film grain pattern in Section 3. Here, the cut-off frequencies include a horizontal cut-off for a low pass filter as additionally shown in Section 3).
Regarding claim 33, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23,
wherein the correlated film grain patterns are a first size (Radosavljevic teaches the correlated film grain patterns which are a first size, wherein “the database includes h×v×64×64 film grain samples (given the range of cut-off frequencies it leads to 13×13×64×64, see Section 2)” in Section 3), and
wherein the block is a second size that is smaller than the first size (Radosavljevic teaches that the block is 8x8 in Section 3. See also FIG. 3).
Claims 26, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic et al. (“Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC”), hereinafter Radosavljevic in view of Schlockermann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0256853A1), hereinafter Schlockermann and Norkin et al. (“Film Grain Synthesis for AV1 Video Codec”), hereinafter Norkin.
Regarding claim 26, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to perform a [] process [] wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different [] coefficients (Radosavljevic teaches using different coefficients to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns in Section 3).
Radosavljevic and Schlockermann fail to teach performing an autoregressive process on a root noise pattern, wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different autoregressive coefficients for the autoregressive process.
However, Norkin teaches performing an autoregressive process on a root noise pattern, wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different autoregressive coefficients for the autoregressive process (Norkin teaches a process of modeling a film grain pattern (correlated film grain pattern) wherein each film grain pattern is generated using different AR-coefficients for “G(x, y), [wherein G(x,y) is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed root noise pattern and is] a zero-mean film grain sample at the current position” as shown in Section 3 and Figure 4. Here, the AR-coefficients as taught by Norkin are autoregressive coefficients and “the film grain pattern is modeled with an autoregressive process” as shown in Section 3).
Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, and Norkin are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to image blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic (as modified by Schlockermann) to incorporate the teachings of Norkin and include “performing an autoregressive process on a root noise pattern, wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different autoregressive coefficients for the autoregressive process”. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a tool that “helps to preserve a film grain look of the encoded video while keeping significantly lower bitrate compared to the scenario when the film grain is directly encoded” and “uses an autoregressive model to support a range of different noise characteristics”, as suggested by Norkin in Section 7 and Section 1, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic and Schlockermann with Norkin to obtain the invention specified in claim 26.
Regarding claim 29, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23.
While Schlockermann teaches a processor (see claim 23) and Radosavljevic teaches a blending process (see sections 2 & 3), Radosavljevic and Schlockermann fail to teach wherein the processor being configured to select the correlated film grain pattern comprises the processor being configured to blend a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection values.
However, Norkin teaches blend a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection values (Norkin teaches determining a film grain sample (G) for a (x, y) position which involves utilizing “previous film grain sample values in the causal neighborhood” in Section 3. Since there are a plurality of previous film grain sample values, wherein the film grain sample values are interpreted as equivalent to the claimed set of correlated film grain patterns, it can be interpreted that the plurality of correlated film grain patterns are blended for adjacent position values).
Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, and Norkin are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to image blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic (as modified by Schlockermann) to incorporate the teachings of Norkin and include “blend[ing] a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection values”. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a tool that “helps to preserve a film grain look of the encoded video while keeping significantly lower bitrate compared to the scenario when the film grain is directly encoded” and “uses an autoregressive model to support a range of different noise characteristics”, as suggested by Norkin in Section 7 and Section 1, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic and Schlockermann with Norkin to obtain the invention specified in claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 30.
Radosavljevic and Schlockermann fail to teach wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a target picture sample value, and wherein the target picture sample value is mapped to a pattern index that indicates the correlated film grain pattern to apply to the pixel of the block.
However, Norkin teaches wherein the correlated film grain pattern is selected based on a target picture sample value (Norkin teaches selecting a scaled film grain pattern for a block which is scaled based on “the luma component value that is fit by measuring noise strength on flat regions of the input” wherein “this piece-wise linear function can be implemented as a precomputed look-up table (LUT) that is initialized before running the grain synthesis” as shown in Section 4 and Section 5.1. Here, the luma component value is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed target picture sample value), and
wherein the target picture sample value is mapped to a pattern index that indicates the correlated film grain pattern to apply to the pixel of the block (Norkin teaches that “Luma grain blocks of size 32×32 are randomly selected from the 64×64 template, the grain samples are scaled with the scale function LUT, described in Section 4 and added to the reconstructed sample values” in section 5.1. Here, the scale function LUT (look-up table) involves mapping the luma component value (target picture sample value) to the look-up table (pattern index) that defines the film grain pattern to apply to the 32x32 blocks (wherein the film grain is inherently applied to each pixel of the block)).
Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, and Norkin are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to image blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic (as modified by Schlockermann) to incorporate the teachings of Norkin and include “blend[ing] a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection values”. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a tool that “helps to preserve a film grain look of the encoded video while keeping significantly lower bitrate compared to the scenario when the film grain is directly encoded” and generate a film grain that “reflects the fact that the film grain in chroma may depend on the luma component (e. g. film grain in chroma may be close to zero in very low luminance signal and significant in the gray and white areas, although chroma values may be similar in both cases)” Norkin in Section 7 and Section 4, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic and Schlockermann with Norkin to obtain the invention specified in claim 31.
Claims 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic et al. (“Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC”), hereinafter Radosavljevic in view of Norkin et al. (“Film Grain Synthesis for AV1 Video Codec”), hereinafter Norkin.
Regarding claim 37, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34, wherein generating the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises performing a [] process [] wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different [] coefficients (Radosavljevic teaches using different coefficients to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns in Section 3).
Radosavljevic fails to teach performing an autoregressive process on a root noise pattern, wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different autoregressive coefficients for the autoregressive process.
However, Norkin teaches performing an autoregressive process on a root noise pattern, wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different autoregressive coefficients for the autoregressive process (Norkin teaches a process of modeling a film grain pattern (correlated film grain pattern) wherein each film grain pattern is generated using different AR-coefficients for “G(x, y), [wherein G(x,y) is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed root noise pattern and is] a zero-mean film grain sample at the current position” as shown in Section 3 and Figure 4. Here, the AR-coefficients as taught by Norkin are autoregressive coefficients and “the film grain pattern is modeled with an autoregressive process” as shown in Section 3).
Radosavljevic and Norkin are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to image blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic to incorporate the teachings of Norkin and include “performing an autoregressive process on a root noise pattern, wherein each correlated film grain pattern of the set of correlated film grain patterns is generated using different autoregressive coefficients for the autoregressive process”. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a tool that “helps to preserve a film grain look of the encoded video while keeping significantly lower bitrate compared to the scenario when the film grain is directly encoded” and “uses an autoregressive model to support a range of different noise characteristics”, as suggested by Norkin in Section 7 and Section 1, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic with Norkin to obtain the invention specified in claim 37.
Regarding claim 40, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34.
Radosavljevic and Schlockermann fail to teach wherein selecting the correlated film grain pattern comprises mixing a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection locations.
However, Norkin teaches mixing a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection values (Norkin teaches determining a film grain sample (G) for a (x, y) position which involves utilizing “previous film grain sample values in the causal neighborhood” in Section 3. Since there are a plurality of previous film grain sample values, wherein the film grain sample values are interpreted as equivalent to the claimed set of correlated film grain patterns, it can be interpreted that the plurality of correlated film grain patterns are blended for adjacent position values).
Radosavljevic and Norkin are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to image blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic to incorporate the teachings of Norkin and include “mixing a plurality of correlated film grain patterns from the set of correlated film grain patterns for adjacent selection values”. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a tool that “helps to preserve a film grain look of the encoded video while keeping significantly lower bitrate compared to the scenario when the film grain is directly encoded” and “uses an autoregressive model to support a range of different noise characteristics”, as suggested by Norkin in Section 7 and Section 1, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic with Norkin to obtain the invention specified in claim 40.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic et al. (“Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC”), hereinafter Radosavljevic in view of Schlockermann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0256853A1), hereinafter Schlockermann, Parker (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373659 A1), and Fisch et al. (WO 2014008329 A1), hereinafter Fisch.
Regarding claim 32, Radosavljevic and Schlockermann teach the device of claim 23.
Radosavljevic and Schlockermann fail to teach to determine a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer; model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution; and derive a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image.
However, Parker teaches to determine a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer (Parker teaches “In order to obtain grain assets, a given film type is analyzed and sampled to obtain grain density at various exposure levels” in para. [0040], wherein “scanned frames represent the proper grain structure of each of the specific regions of the film characteristic curve and hereinafter referred to as “grain assets” as shown in para. [0041]. Here, since each grain asset is directed towards a specific region, it is inherent that there exists a first particle with properties in a first grain asset (emulsion layer) and a second particle with properties in a second grain asset (emulsion layer));
model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels (Parker teaches “receiving a plurality of different grain assets corresponding to different film exposure levels 30” in para. [0039], wherein “In order to obtain grain assets, a given film type is analyzed and sampled to obtain grain density at various exposure levels” as shown in para. [0040]. Here, these assets inherently include the claimed modeled behavior);
derive a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer (Parker teaches “adding a different grain asset to each of the plurality of luminance delineated matte images to create a plurality of asset plates 36” in para. [0039]. Here, these asset plates are interpreted as equivalent to the first and second grain images), wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image (Parker teaches “combining the plurality of asset plates to form a final digital video image 38” in para. [0039], wherein the film grains are layered (overlayed) as shown in para. [0051]. The combined asset plates are interpreted as equivalent to the overlaid grain images, which correlate to respective regions. See also Radosavljevic’s teaching of the set of correlated film grain patterns which can be combined with Parker’s teaching of combining grain images to generate correlated film grain patterns).
Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, and Parker are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic (as modified by Schlockermann) to incorporate the teachings of Parker and include to “determine a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer; model behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; and derive a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “different types of film have different grain patterns and different responses to exposure levels. Accordingly, it may be desirable to simulate the grain of different types of film in different video projects, or even different parts of the same video project”, as suggested by Parker in para. [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic and Schlockermann with Parker to obtain the invention specified in the above claim limitations.
Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, and Parker fail to teach emulate scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution.
However, Fisch teaches emulating scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution (Fisch teaches “a Grain Density 160 system receives at its input Output 151 which is the comfort noise padded and processed to the target resolution, and generate an increased density comfort noise at the target or desired resolution” in para. [0076], wherein “ using a method based on applying non-overlapping random coordinate shifts, as described above, on the original sparse grain image Output 151, the Grain Density 160 system produces an Output 161 which corresponds to a scaled-up comfort noise or film grain matrix G” as shown in para. [0077]. See also para. [0075]. Here, the process of generating the grain images with a target resolution is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed limitation, since grain images inherently include emulsion layers and the method as taught by Fisch includes separating the film grain into separate regions, which each include at least a first and second particle).
Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, Parker, and Fisch are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic (as modified by Schlockermann and Parker) to incorporate the teachings of Fisch and include “emulating scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “using an intelligent system to control and dynamically alter or adjust such processing steps according to a region or local neighborhood content would result in a major improvement and achieve the generation of output video data information providing an enhanced viewing experience” and producing a film grain with a target resolution “in order to maintain a natural look at high resolution”, as suggested by Fisch in para. [0057] and para. [0080], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic, Schlockermann, and Parker with Fisch to obtain the invention specified in claim 32.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic et al. (“Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC”), hereinafter Radosavljevic in view of Parker (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373659 A1), and Fisch et al. (WO 2014008329 A1), hereinafter Fisch.
Regarding claim 42, Radosavljevic teaches the method of claim 34.
Radosavljevic fails to teach determining a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer; modeling behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; emulating scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution; and deriving a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image.
However, Parker teaches determining a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer (Parker teaches “In order to obtain grain assets, a given film type is analyzed and sampled to obtain grain density at various exposure levels” in para. [0040], wherein “scanned frames represent the proper grain structure of each of the specific regions of the film characteristic curve and hereinafter referred to as “grain assets” as shown in para. [0041]. Here, since each grain asset is directed towards a specific region, it is inherent that there exists a first particle with properties in a first grain asset (emulsion layer) and a second particle with properties in a second grain asset (emulsion layer));
modeling behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels (Parker teaches “receiving a plurality of different grain assets corresponding to different film exposure levels 30” in para. [0039], wherein “In order to obtain grain assets, a given film type is analyzed and sampled to obtain grain density at various exposure levels” as shown in para. [0040]. Here, these assets inherently include the claimed modeled behavior);
deriving a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer (Parker teaches “adding a different grain asset to each of the plurality of luminance delineated matte images to create a plurality of asset plates 36” in para. [0039]. Here, these asset plates are interpreted as equivalent to the first and second grain images), wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image (Parker teaches “combining the plurality of asset plates to form a final digital video image 38” in para. [0039], wherein the film grains are layered (overlayed) as shown in para. [0051]. The combined asset plates are interpreted as equivalent to the overlaid grain images, which correlate to respective regions. See also Radosavljevic’s teaching of the set of correlated film grain patterns which can be combined with Parker’s teaching of combining grain images to generate correlated film grain patterns).
Radosavljevic and Parker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic to incorporate the teachings of Parker and include “determining a first set of properties associated with a first particle in a first emulsion layer, and a second set of properties associated with a second particle in a second emulsion layer; modeling behavior of the first particle and the second particle at different exposure levels; and deriving a first grain image from the first emulsion layer, and a second grain image from the second emulsion layer, wherein the processor being configured to generate the set of correlated film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to iteratively overlay the first grain image and the second grain image”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “different types of film have different grain patterns and different responses to exposure levels. Accordingly, it may be desirable to simulate the grain of different types of film in different video projects, or even different parts of the same video project”, as suggested by Parker in para. [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic with Parker to obtain the invention specified in the above claim limitations.
Radosavljevic and Parker fail to teach emulating scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution.
However, Fisch teaches emulating scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution (Fisch teaches “a Grain Density 160 system receives at its input Output 151 which is the comfort noise padded and processed to the target resolution, and generate an increased density comfort noise at the target or desired resolution” in para. [0076], wherein “ using a method based on applying non-overlapping random coordinate shifts, as described above, on the original sparse grain image Output 151, the Grain Density 160 system produces an Output 161 which corresponds to a scaled-up comfort noise or film grain matrix G” as shown in para. [0077]. See also para. [0075]. Here, the process of generating the grain images with a target resolution is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed limitation, since grain images inherently include emulsion layers and the method as taught by Fisch includes separating the film grain into separate regions, which each include at least a first and second particle).
Radosavljevic, Parker, and Fisch are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of selecting film grain patterns to apply to images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radosavljevic (as modified by Parker) to incorporate the teachings of Fisch and include “emulating scans of the first particle and the second particle at a given resolution”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “using an intelligent system to control and dynamically alter or adjust such processing steps according to a region or local neighborhood content would result in a major improvement and achieve the generation of output video data information providing an enhanced viewing experience” and producing a film grain with a target resolution “in order to maintain a natural look at high resolution”, as suggested by Fisch in para. [0057] and para. [0080], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Radosavljevic and Parker with Fisch to obtain the invention specified in claim 42.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carmel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0345170 A1) teaches that “film grain overlay, sometimes referred to as “FGO,” is a process in which film emulsion characteristics are overlaid using different levels of opacity onto a digital file”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm EST.
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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights