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 § 112
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 41 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 41, the disclosed limitation “The device of claim 49, wherein each film grain parameter in the set of film grain parameters is associated with a corresponding weight”, is indefinite since there is no claim 49 listed, which claim 41 may depend on. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as depending on claim 40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of selecting a film grain pattern) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 22 recite(s):
“…obtain film grain pattern priority information associated with a plurality of film grain patterns for a block”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer viewing predetermined film grain pattern priority information.
“…determine, based on the film grain pattern priority information, a reduced set of film grain patterns, from the plurality of film grain patterns, on which to perform a film grain pattern analysis”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining a reduced set of film grain patterns based on the viewed film grain pattern priority information.
“…perform the film grain pattern analysis on the reduced set of film grain patterns” and “…select, based on the film grain pattern analysis, a film grain pattern, from the reduced set of film grain patterns, to apply to a pixel component of the block”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer viewing a reduced set and mentally performing a pattern analysis and selecting a pattern based on the analysis.
“…apply the selected film grain pattern to the pixel component of the block”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally applying the selected pattern to the block.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of additional elements:
“A device, comprising: a processor”; is/are generically recited computer element(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a generically recited device, comprising: a generically recited processor.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of additional elements:
“A device, comprising: a processor”; is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer element(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a well-understood, routine, and conventional device, comprising: a well-understood, routine, and conventional processor.
Depending claims 23-30 do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a reduced set of film grain patterns which comprises film grain patterns associated parameters listed first in a SEI message. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a reduced set of film grain patterns comprises a number of patterns with the greatest weights. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of selecting a film grain pattern based on differences determined between a first set and a third set of film grain parameters, and between a second set and the third set of film grain parameters. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining and applying a scaling factor to the selected film grain pattern. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of obtaining film grain pattern priority information which indicated a prioritization rule and a maximum number of film grain patterns in the reduced set. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of the pixel component of the block comprises a pixel intensity component. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claim(s) 31-39, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 22-30 are analogous.
Claim(s) 40 recite(s):
“…generate a set of film grain parameters associated with a video image”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer viewing a video image and mentally generating film grain description parameters.
“…determine film grain pattern priority information indicative of a reduced set of film grain parameters”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally predetermining film grain pattern priority information.
“…determine, based on the film grain pattern priority information, a reduced set of film grain patterns, from the plurality of film grain patterns, on which to perform a film grain pattern analysis”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining a reduced set of film grain patterns based on the viewed film grain pattern priority information.
“…perform the film grain pattern analysis on the reduced set of film grain patterns” and “…select, based on the film grain pattern analysis, a film grain pattern, from the reduced set of film grain patterns, to apply to a pixel component of the block”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer viewing a reduced set and mentally performing a pattern analysis and selecting a pattern based on the analysis.
“…apply the selected film grain pattern to the pixel component of the block”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally applying the selected pattern to the block.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of additional elements:
“A video encoding device, comprising: a processor”; is/are generically recited computer element(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a generically recited video encoding device, comprising: a generically recited processor.
“…generate a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message associated with the video image, wherein the SEI message comprises the set of film grain parameters associated with the video image and the film grain pattern priority information”; is/are generically recited computer methods(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a generically recited SEI message.
“…encode the video image to generate an encoded video image”; is/are generically recited computer methods(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a generically recited image encoding.
“…send the SEI message and the encoded video image”; is/are generically recited extra-solution activity of data outputting.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of additional elements:
“A video encoding device, comprising: a processor”; is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer element(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a well-understood, routine, and conventional video encoding device, comprising: a well-understood, routine, and conventional processor.
“…generate a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message associated with the video image, wherein the SEI message comprises the set of film grain parameters associated with the video image and the film grain pattern priority information”; is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer methods(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a well-understood, routine, and conventional SEI message.
“…encode the video image to generate an encoded video image”; is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer methods(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a well-understood, routine, and conventional image encoding.
“…send the SEI message and the encoded video image”; is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Depending claim 41 does not remedy these deficiencies.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining film grain pattern priority information based on the weights of the parameters. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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) 22-25, 28-34, and 37-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic et al. (Implementation of film-grain technology within VVC) hereinafter referenced as Radosavljevic, in view of Cooper et al. (US2006115175A1) hereinafter referenced as Cooper.
Regarding claim 22, Radosavljevic discloses: A device, comprising: a processor (Radosavljevic: 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP: “The complete process is implemented within the VTM12.0 reference software, and it is available in the JVET document [18]. As one option, film_grain_characteristics.cfg is updated by adding new user-defined configuration parameters. All parameters that are defined with FGC SEI message format (Section 2), can be provided in the configuration file.”) configured to: determine, a set of film grain patterns, on which to perform a film grain pattern analysis (Radosavljevic: 2. FILM GRAIN SUPPORT IN VVC: “By SMPTE-RDD5, FGC SEI message is inserted at each frame, which is indicated by setting film_grain_characteristics_persistence_flag to 0. It means also that FGC SEI message is applied to the current decoded frame only…In many cases, an expert familiar with the film grain modeling and film grain characteristics provides a manually selected set of film grain parameters. Those parameters can be tuned to simulate a specific film grain pattern, to simulate a different film grain intensity, to better mask compression artifacts, etc. Typically manually tuned parameters are provided to the encoder based on the input from configuration file, e.g., see Fig. 1. Encoder encapsulates provided parameters and code it to the bitstream.”;
3. MODELING FILM GRAIN BY FILTERING IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN: “The model described here is based on filtering in the frequency/transform domain which includes filtering of the random noise to simulate the film grain pattern. By this model, film grain patterns are modeled in the frequency domain by using a pair of cut-off frequencies that define a low-pass filter, and patterns are later-on scaled to the proper intensity before finally blending it to the image.”);
perform the film grain pattern analysis on the set of film grain patterns; select, based on the film grain pattern analysis, a film grain pattern, from the set of film grain patterns, to apply to a pixel component of the block (Radosavljevic: 3. MODELING FILM GRAIN BY FILTERING IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN: “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 (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). By comparing the average value with the SEI message intensity_interval_lower_bound[ c ][ i ] and intensity_interval_upper_bound[ c ][ i ] parameters, intensity interval is identified. Hence, 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.”; Wherein each SEI intensity interval boundary pair is compared to an average of an 8x8 image in order to select a film grain pattern based on FGC parameters.); and
apply the selected film grain pattern to the pixel component of the block (Radosavljevic: 3. MODELING FILM GRAIN BY FILTERING IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN: “Thereafter, film grain is added to the image on 8 × 8 basis. Thus, 8 × 8 blocks are randomly selected from the FG block (size 64 × 64) created in the previous step. The pseudo-random number generator is used to define an offset from the origin of 64 × 64 FG block in order to ensure bit-exact simulation. The reasoning to add film grain to the image on an 8 × 8 block basis instead to directly add film grain by using the full FG block is to ensure randomness of the film grain when added to the image (since film grain is random noise and repeating patterns in an image can lead to a lower quality in terms of subjective visual performance).”).
Radosavljevic does not disclose expressly: a processor configured to: obtain film grain pattern priority information associated with a plurality of film grain patterns for a block;
determine, based on the film grain pattern priority information, a reduced set of film grain patterns, from the plurality of film grain patterns, on which to perform a film grain pattern analysis;
perform the film grain pattern analysis on the reduced set of film grain patterns;
select, based on the film grain pattern analysis, a film grain pattern, from the reduced set of film grain patterns, to apply to a pixel component of the block; and
apply the selected film grain pattern to the pixel component of the block.
Cooper discloses: a method for splitting the storage of acquired film grain patterns between an internal cache and external memory (Cooper: Abstract). Wherein the method discloses a processor configured to: obtain film grain pattern priority information associated with a plurality of film grain patterns for a block (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds). It should be noted that this change is compliant with the H.264 I MPEG AVC standard. Then, for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”); and determine, based on the film grain pattern priority information, a reduced set of film grain patterns, from the plurality of film grain patterns, on which to perform a film grain pattern analysis (Cooper: 0023: “in an implementation where a total of 10 film grain patterns are to be stored, if the internal cache 109 stores N film grain patterns, then the external memory 114 stores the remaining 10-N film grain patterns. Splitting the storage of film grain patterns between an internal cache 109 and an external memory 114 in accordance with the present invention provides reduced internal memory size requirements resulting in reduced chip area and reduced typical and average memory bandwidth over solutions having only an external memory for storing film grain patterns. In various embodiment of the present invention, the memory bandwidth (BW) required for film grain simulation in accordance with the present invention can be reduced to zero since not all stored film grain patterns are used for a specific film content.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for splitting the storage of film grain patterns taught by Cooper for the storage of SEI film grain patterns disclosed by Radosavljevic. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “in accordance with the present invention, any split is possible. The more film grain patterns that are stored in the internal cache 109, the lower the probability that the worst case external memory BW will be needed. In addition, since not all of the film grain cache is needed during a given content simulation, in many cases the memory BW is reduced significantly” (Cooper: 0024). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Radosavljevic with Cooper to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 22, wherein:
the processor is further configured to receive a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message comprising a list of parameters; and the processor being configured to determine, based on the film grain pattern priority information, the reduced set of film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to determine that the reduced set of film grain patterns comprises film grain patterns associated with a number of parameters that are listed first in the SEI message (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds). It should be noted that this change is compliant with the H.264 I MPEG AVC standard. Then, for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”).
Regarding claim 24, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 22, wherein each of the film grain patterns of the plurality of film grain patterns is associated with a corresponding weight, and wherein the processor being configured to determine, based on the film grain pattern priority information, the reduced set of film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to determine that the reduced set of film grain patterns comprises a number of film grain patterns, of the plurality of film grain patterns, with the greatest corresponding weight (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds). It should be noted that this change is compliant with the H.264 I MPEG AVC standard. Then, for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”; Wherein each pattern’s weight is determined based on their listed order.).
Regarding claim 25, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 24, wherein the corresponding weight of a given film grain pattern is based on at least one of: a sum of intensity interval sizes associated with the given film grain pattern; a number of pixels to which the given film grain pattern will be applied; a scaling factor associated with the given film grain pattern; an intensity value associated with the given film grain pattern; or a weighted average of parameter values associated with the given film grain pattern (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds)…for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”; Wherein each pattern’s weight is determined based on their number of previous, and expected, implementations.).
Regarding claim 28, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 22, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a scaling factor associated with the selected film grain pattern; and apply the scaling factor to the selected film grain pattern (Radosavljevic: 2. FILM GRAIN SUPPORT IN VVC: “Since film grain is dependant on the local characteristics of an image, different scaling of the film grain can be applied for different intensities or intensity intervals of an input image in order to get appropriate intensity of the film grain before finally blending it to the input image. After creating a film grain pattern in accordance with frequency filtering model (see Section 3 for more details), scaling to the proper intensity based on the scaling factor (SF) is performed. It determines the level at which the film grain will be perceived in the final image, and by doing that we ensure that the film grain is simulated at the correct scale.”).
Regarding claim 29, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 22, wherein the film grain pattern priority information indicates: a rule for prioritizing the plurality of film grain patterns; and a maximum number of film grain patterns that the reduced set of film grain patterns may include (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds)…for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”).
Regarding claim 30, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 22, wherein the pixel component of the block comprises a pixel intensity component (Radosavljevic: 3. MODELING FILM GRAIN BY FILTERING IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN: “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 (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). By comparing the average value with the SEI message intensity_interval_lower_bound[ c ][ i ] and intensity_interval_upper_bound[ c ][ i ] parameters, intensity interval is identified. Hence, 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 per claim(s) 31, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 22 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 32, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 23 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 33, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 24 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 34, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 25 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 37, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 28 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 38, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 29 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 39, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 30 are analogous.
Regarding claim 40, Radosavljevic discloses: A video encoding device, comprising: a processor configured to:
generate a set of film grain parameters associated with a video image; generate a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message associated with the video image, wherein the SEI message comprises the set of film grain parameters associated with the video image; encode the video image to generate an encoded video image; and send the SEI message and the encoded video image (Radosavljevic: Figure 1; 1. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION: “an expert familiar with the film grain modeling and film grain characteristics provides a manually selected set of film grain parameters. Those parameters can be tuned to simulate a specific film grain pattern, to simulate a different film grain intensity, to better mask compression artifacts, etc. Typically manually tuned parameters are provided to the encoder based on the input from configuration file, e.g., see Fig. 1. Encoder encapsulates provided parameters and code it to the bitstream.”).
Radosavljevic does not disclose expressly: determine film grain pattern priority information indicative of a reduced set of film grain parameters; generate a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message associated with the video image, wherein the SEI message comprises the set of film grain parameters associated with the video image and the film grain pattern priority information.
Cooper discloses: determine film grain pattern priority information indicative of a reduced set of film grain parameters; generate a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message associated with the video image, wherein the SEI message comprises the set of film grain parameters associated with the video image and the film grain pattern priority information (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds). It should be noted that this change is compliant with the H.264 I MPEG AVC standard. Then, for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for splitting the storage of film grain patterns taught by Cooper for the storage of SEI film grain patterns disclosed by Radosavljevic. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “in accordance with the present invention, any split is possible. The more film grain patterns that are stored in the internal cache 109, the lower the probability that the worst case external memory BW will be needed. In addition, since not all of the film grain cache is needed during a given content simulation, in many cases the memory BW is reduced significantly” (Cooper: 0024). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Radosavljevic with Cooper to obtain the invention as specified in claim 40.
Regarding claim 41, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 49, wherein each film grain parameter in the set of film grain parameters is associated with a corresponding weight, and wherein the film grain priority information indicates that the film grain parameters associated with greatest corresponding weights are listed first in the SEI message (Claim limitation is interpreted according to the rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) disclosed above) (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds). It should be noted that this change is compliant with the H.264 I MPEG AVC standard. Then, for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”).
Claim(s) 26-27 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radosavljevic in view of Cooper, and further in view of Drugeon et al. (US2024064330A1), hereinafter referenced as Drugeon, and Grois et al. (Film Grain Synthesis Technology for Video Applications) hereinafter referenced as Grois.
Regarding claim 26, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper discloses: The device of claim 22, wherein: a first film grain pattern of the reduced set of film grain patterns is associated with a first set of film grain parameters; a second film grain pattern of the reduced set of film grain patterns is associated with a second set of film grain parameters (Cooper: 0030: “a priority order of film grain patterns is derived from a standardized film grain SEI message. That is, since the SEI message contains a list of intensity intervals, each one with its own film grain parameters, the intensity intervals could be listed according to their priority (instead of being listed with increasing intensity interval bounds). It should be noted that this change is compliant with the H.264 I MPEG AVC standard. Then, for each color component, the first N film grain patterns are stored in the internal cache because those first N film grain patterns are the film grain patterns most implemented.”).
Radosavljevic in view of Cooper does not disclose expressly: the processor being configured to perform the film grain pattern analysis on the reduced set of film grain patterns comprises the processor being configured to determine a first difference between the first set of film grain parameters and the third set of film grain parameters, and a second difference between the second set of film grain parameters and the third set of film grain parameters.
Drugeon discloses: a processor performing a prediction image analysis, which comprises the processor being configured to determine a first difference between a first prediction image and a current image, and a second difference between a second prediction image and the current image (Drugeon: 0433-0434: “the predictor calculates costs C for the prediction images generated in Step Sc_ 1 a , Sc_ 1 b , and Sc_ 1 c , and evaluates the prediction images by comparing the costs C of the prediction images…for example, a sum of absolute differences between the pixel value of a current block and the pixel value of a prediction image…
The predictor then selects one of the prediction images generated in Steps Sc_ 1 a , Sc_ 1 b , and Sc_ 1 c (Step Sc_ 3 ). In other words, the predictor selects a method or a mode for obtaining a final prediction image. For example, the predictor selects the prediction image having the smallest cost C, based on costs C calculated for the prediction images.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the image prediction analysis taught by Drugeon for the selection of a film grain pattern disclosed by Radosavljevic in view of Cooper. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “the predictor selects a method or a mode for obtaining a final prediction image. For example, the predictor selects the prediction image having the smallest cost C, based on costs C calculated for the prediction images” (Drugeon: 0434). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Radosavljevic in view of Cooper and Drugeon does not disclose expressly: the processor is further configured to receive a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message that indicates a third set of film grain parameters.
Thus, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper and Drugeon does not disclose receiving a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message that indicates an original image as a third set of film grain parameters.
Grois discloses: a system for performing film grain synthesis for videos, wherein the system discloses receiving an indication of an original image as a third set of film grain parameters (Grois: 8.1.1.2 Determine applicable intensity intervals: “For the frequency filtering model, applicable intensity intervals for each sample for each applicable colour component can be determined as follows:
1) Assign each sample of the decoded image to a unique block of neighbouring sample values
2) Calculate the average value of the sample values in the block
3) Associate all samples within the block with the index of each interval value signalled in the FGC SEI message when the block average is within the upper and lower bounds of the intensity interval. Note that more than one or no intensity interval may be applicable to each block of samples”;
8.1.2.2.1 Film grain block blending process: “Inputs to this process are…a decoded sample array decSamples…
If intensitylntervalldx is equal to - 1, blendSamples[ xCurr + i ][ yCurr + j ] is set equal to decSamples[ xCurr + i ][ yCurr + j ]”;
Wherein if there is no valid intensity interval, then the image block is unmodified by film grain patterns.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the decoded image as a film grain parameter as taught by Grois for the selection of a film grain pattern disclosed by Radosavljevic in view of Cooper and Drugeon. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “For the frequency filtering model, applicable intensity intervals for each sample for each applicable colour component can be determined as follows…3) Associate all samples within the block with the index of each interval value signalled in the FGC SEI message when the block average is within the upper and lower bounds of the intensity interval. Note that more than one or no intensity interval may be applicable to each block of samples” (Grois: 8.1.1.2 Determine applicable intensity intervals; Wherein the method is able to account for a variety of applicable intensity interval scenarios.). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Radosavljevic in view of Cooper and Drugeon with Grois to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, Radosavljevic in view of Cooper, Drugeon, and Grois discloses: The device of claim 26, wherein the processor being configured to select, based on the film grain pattern analysis, the film grain pattern to apply to the pixel component of the block comprises the processor being configured to: on a condition that the first difference is less than the second difference, select the first film grain pattern to apply to the pixel component of the block; and on a condition that the second difference is less than the first difference, select the second film grain pattern to apply to the pixel component of the block (Drugeon: 0433-0434: “the predictor calculates costs C for the prediction images generated in Step Sc_ 1 a , Sc_ 1 b , and Sc_ 1 c , and evaluates the prediction images by comparing the costs C of the prediction images…for example, a sum of absolute differences between the pixel value of a current block and the pixel value of a prediction image…
The predictor then selects one of the prediction images generated in Steps Sc_ 1 a , Sc_ 1 b , and Sc_ 1 c (Step Sc_ 3 ). In other words, the predictor selects a method or a mode for obtaining a final prediction image. For example, the predictor selects the prediction image having the smallest cost C, based on costs C calculated for the prediction images.”;
Wherein the selection of the pattern is based on pattern image determined to have the smallest cost.).
As per claim(s) 35, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 26 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 36, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 27 are analogous.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights