DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
2. This office action for US Patent application 18/863,071 is responsive to communications filed on 03/07/2026, in response to the Non-Final Rejection of 12/03/2026. Claim 16 has been cancelled. New claim 21 has been added. Claim 15 has been amended. Currently, claims 1-15, 17-21 are pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. In response to communication filed on 03/02/2026, the claim objections with respect to claim 15 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 with respect to claim 15 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment and remarks.
4. Applicant's Remarks see pages 6-7, with respect to the amendment and argument have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant urges that Terterov does not teach “selecting at least one region of the
reconstructed image based on at least one coding parameter of the at least one region when encoding the input image” as recited in claim 1 (see pages 6-7: Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectively disagrees. Claim 2 of current invention discloses that the at least one coding parameter is at least one of or a combination of two or more of: a size of the coding unit used for encoding the coding unit, an intra prediction mode used for encoding the coding unit, a code block flag indicating whether an encoding of the coding unit provides non-zero residuals, a bit per pixel cost used for encoding the coding unit, a position in the coding unit of a last significant coefficient, and an index of a first coefficient for which a given percentage of energy of the coefficients of the coding unit is obtained by coefficients located before the first coefficient. Similarly, Terterov discloses a coding parameter such as “intra prediction”(see paragraphs 0110-0111) and blocks of size (paragraph 0147). Furthermore, intra_block_cost, inter_block_cost, bitrate, frame resolution are also considered as the coding parameters of the encoding (see paragraphs 0110, 0115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-3, 10-11, 15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terterov et al. (US 2019/0246138A1) (hereinafter Terterov).
Regarding claim 1, Tererov discloses a method (e.g., see abstract; Fig. 4) comprising:
obtaining a reconstructed image from an encoding of an input image (e.g., see paragraphs 0075, 0135, 0085: reconstructed frame/image or decoded frame/video),
selecting at least one region of the reconstructed image (e.g., see Fig. 7, paragraphs 0132, 0135: regions of grain reconstructed; paragraphs 0020, 0029, 0032: one more area/region of portion of image, film grain) based on at least one coding parameter of the at least one region when encoding the input image (e.g., see paragraphs 0110-0111: coding parameter such as intra_block and inter_block; also see paragraphs 0147, 0191: block size such as 16x16 pixels), and
determining one or more film grain parameters from the at least one region and the input image (e.g., see Fig. 7, paragraphs 0135, 0191: film grain parameters and grain reconstructed; also see Fig. 4, paragraphs 0143, 0144, 0161: the flat area of a frame with film grain).
Regarding claim 2, this claim is an apparatus claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the apparatus performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Terterov discloses the apparatus comprising one or more processors (see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0067-0071).
Regarding claim 3, Tererov discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one region is a coding unit, and wherein the at least one coding parameter is at least one of or a combination of two or more of: a size of the coding unit used for encoding the coding unit, an intra prediction mode used for encoding the coding unit, a code block flag indicating whether an encoding of the coding unit provides non-zero residuals, a bit per pixel cost used for encoding the coding unit, a position in the coding unit of a last significant coefficient, and an index of a first coefficient for which a given percentage of energy of the coefficients of the coding unit is obtained by coefficients located before the first coefficient (e.g., see paragraphs 0110-0111: coding parameter such as intra_block and inter_block; also see paragraphs 147, 0191: block size such as 16x16 pixels).
Regarding claim 10, Tererov discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the input image is encoded as an intra picture (e.g., see paragraphs 0110-0111, 0115: coding parameter such as intra_block).
Regarding claim 11, Tererov discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one coding parameter obtained from an encoding of a luma component of the input image (e.g., see paragraphs 0117, 0118, 0139: luma component such as bright colors, etc.; also see paragraphs 0141, 0158).
Regarding claim 12, Tererov discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein obtaining the reconstructed image comprises removing film grain from the input image (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0029, 0076, 0129: removing grain content; Figs. 4, 7, paragraphs 0134, 0135, 0143: detected film grain can be removed).
Regarding claim 15, it contains the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 17, it contains the limitations of claims 3 and 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 21, it contains the limitations of claims 2 and 15, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claim 4-9, 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terterov et al. (US 2019/0246138A1) in view of "Test Model 15 for Versatile Video Coding (VTM 15)", 136. MPEG MEETING; 20211011 - 20211015; ONLINE; (MOTION PICTURE EXPERT GROUP OR ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), (hereinafter Test Model 15) (cited by IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Tererov further discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that a size of the at least one region (e.g., see paragraphs 147, 0191: block size such as 16x16 pixels), but fails to disclose the at least one region is greater than or equal to a given coding unit size.
However, Test Model 15 discloses the at least one region is greater than or equal to a given coding unit size (e.g., see page 98, section 4.1: the grain block size is increased for resolutions greater than 1920x1080 restricts gain block size to 8x8; page 27, section 3.31: coding size/TU size if greater than 32; also see page 32, section 3.3.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 5, Tererov does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that the intra prediction mode is a DC mode or a planar mode.
However, Test Model 15 discloses wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that the intra prediction mode is a DC mode or a planar mode (e.g., see page 24, sections 3.31, 3.3.1.1: DC mode and planar mode; also see page 30, section 3.3.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 6, Tererov and Test Model 15 disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tererov does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that the code block flag indicates that the encoding of the coding unit provides zero residuals.
However, Test Model 15 discloses wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that the code block flag indicates that the encoding of the coding unit provides zero residuals (e.g., see page 63, section 3.5.5: zero residual; page 69, section 3.6.3: coded_sub_block_flag; page 92, section 3.9.3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 7, Tererov and Test Model 15 disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tererov does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that the bit per pixel cost is greater than or equal to a given value.
However, Test Model 15 discloses wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that the bit per pixel cost is greater than or equal to a given value (e.g., abstract, see pages 98-99, section 4.1: bit depth (bit per pixel) and pixel greater than a given value; also see page 70, section 3.6.3.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 8, Tererov and Test Model 15 disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tererov does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that a distance between a top left position in the coding unit and the position in the coding unit of the last significant coefficient is less than or equal to a given value.
However, Test Model 15 discloses wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that a distance between a top left position in the coding unit and the position in the coding unit of the last significant coefficient is less than or equal to a given value (e.g., abstract, see page 59, section 3.5.2: last significant coefficient; page 69, section 3.6.2: last significant coefficient is equal to 0 or 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 9, Tererov and Test Model 15 disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tererov does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that a distance between a top left position in the coding unit and the position in the coding unit of the first coefficient for which a given percentage of the energy is provided by the coefficients located between the top left position and the first coefficient, is less than or equal to a given value.
However, Test Model 15 discloses wherein the at least one region is selected responsive to a determination that a distance between a top left position in the coding unit and the position in the coding unit of the first coefficient for which a given percentage of the energy is provided by the coefficients located between the top left position and the first coefficient, is less than or equal to a given value (e.g., see Fig. 28, page 43-44, section 3.4.5.1: top left position and coefficient; page 111-112, section 6.6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 13, Tererov and Test Model 15 disclose all the limitations of claim 12, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tererov further discloses removing film grain from the input image is performed (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0029, 0076, 0129: removing grain content; Figs. 4, 7, paragraphs 0134, 0135, 0143: detected film grain can be removed).
Tererov does not explicitly disclose the input image is performed by the encoding of the input image at the quantization parameter; a determination that a value of a quantization parameter used for encoding the input image is greater than or equal to a given value.
However, Test Model 15 discloses the input image is performed by the encoding of the input image at the quantization parameter; a determination that a value of a quantization parameter used for encoding the input image is greater than or equal to a given value (e.g., see page 86, sections 3.5.6.1: quantization parameter; page 85, section 3.7.3.3.1-3.7.3.3.2: QP is less than or equal to a given value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 14, Tererov further discloses the apparatus of claim 12, removing film grain from the input image (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0029, 0076, 0129: removing grain content; Figs. 4, 7, paragraphs 0134, 0135, 0143: detected film grain can be removed) is performed by denoising the input image using an external denoiser or an image filtering tool of a video encoder (e.g., see paragraph 0140: removing noise).
Tererov does not explicitly disclose wherein responsive to a determination that a value of a quantization parameter used for encoding the input image is less than a given value.
However, Test Model 15 discloses wherein responsive to a determination that a value of a quantization parameter used for encoding the input image is less than a given value (e.g., see page 86, sections 3.5.6.1: quantization parameter; page 85, section 3.7.3.3.1-3.7.3.3.2: QP is less than or equal to a given value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tererov to add the teachings of Test Model 15 as above, in order to provide improved video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (see abstract: Test Model 15).
Regarding claim 18, it contains the limitations of claims 4-7 and 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 19, it contains the limitations of claim 8 and 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 20, it contains the limitations of claims 9 and 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights