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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a method of transmitting a bitstream, but it fails to include any step of transmission in the body of the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes the claimed method of transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leleannec et al. (US 20220038719 A1), hereinafter referred to as Leleannec.
Regarding claims 13, this claim is directed to a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The computer-readable recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 13 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a computer-readable recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Leleannec which recites a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (See Leleannec, ¶[0140] ).
Regarding claims 14, this claim is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The limitations related to the operations that generated the bitstream are irrelevant as in terms of determining patentability of the method of transmitting a bitstream. Therefore, the operations referenced in the claim(s) that generates the bitstream do not form part of transmitting method, and thus are not limiting to the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim scope is just a method of transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Leleannec which recites a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Leleannec, ¶¶[0153] and [0154] ).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US20200252654A1), hereinafter referred to as Su, in view of Mamiya et al. (), hereinafter referred to as Mamiya
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising (¶[0013] discloses method and apparatus of video encoding video coding for a video encoder or decoder using Neural Network (NN):
obtaining a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (¶[0009] - bitstream associated with the transform coefficients is then packed with side information and [0038] - one method to utilize NN (e.g. CNN) as an image restoration method in a video coding system. In other words, Su discloses obtaining an encoded side information (metadata) to control a neural-network (NN) used for image decoding (post-filter). Therefore, while Su does not expressly name an “neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message,” have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implemented the disclosed neural-network post-filter using a standard message structure, as SEI messages are well-known container for side information); and
performing post-filtering on an input picture to obtain an output picture based on the NNPFC SEI message (¶[0047] discloses an example of applying NN 510 to the reconstructed signal. In FIG. 5, the input of NN 510 is reconstructed pixels from REC 128. The output of NN is the NN-filtered reconstructed pixels),
Su does not explicitly disclose wherein the NNPFC SEI message includes ratio information for determining a size of the output picture and wherein the ratio information comprises numerator information and denominator information specifying a ratio of the size of the output picture relative to a size of the input picture.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses wherein the NNPFC SEI message includes ratio information for determining a size of the output picture (¶[0062] discloses receiving ratio information to determine the dimensions of the enlarged output picture)
wherein the ratio information comprises numerator information and denominator information specifying a ratio of the size of the output picture relative to a size of the input picture (¶[0062] discloses that the enlargement ratio is expressed as R/P, wherein the numerator R is the output width and de denominator P input width).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Su to add the teachings of Mamiya as above, in order to perform conversion by magnification without any accumulation of errors while a coordinate of a transfer destination is an integer (Mamiya, [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Su does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the numerator information includes first numerator information for a first ratio of a width of the output picture relative to a width of the input picture and second numerator information for a second ratio of a height of the output picture relative to a height of the input picture.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the numerator information includes first numerator information for a first ratio of a width of the output picture relative to a width of the input picture and second numerator information for a second ratio of a height of the output picture relative to a height of the input picture (¶[0061]] discloses the case of enlarging the data having a horizontal width composed of a P dot to the one having a horizontal width composed of an R dot is described. An operation is similar for a vertical side).
The motivation for combining Su and Mamiya has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Su does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein the information includes first denominator information for the first ratio second denominator information for the second ratio.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein the information includes first denominator information for the first ratio second denominator information for the second ratio (¶[0061]] discloses the case of enlarging the data having a horizontal width composed of a P dot to the one having a horizontal width composed of an R dot is described. An operation is similar for a vertical side).
The motivation for combining Su and Mamiya has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 4, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Su discloses the side information may also be compressed by entropy coding to reduce required bandwidth (¶[0009]).
Moreover, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses determining scaling parameters by determining a block size Q or Q+1 (¶[00] discloses).
Su and Mamiya do not explicitly disclose signaling the numerator value by adding 1 to the numerator information. However, it is well known in the art of video compression to sing positive integer syntax elements by subtracting 1 before encoding and adding 1 upon decoding. This technique is used to improve entropy coding efficiency buy mapping the smallest valid number (e.g. 1) to code 0, which requires fewer bits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Su and Mamiya to signal the numerator information using a “minus1” format in order to reduce the number of bits encoded potentizing bitstream efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Su discloses the side information may also be compressed by entropy coding to reduce required bandwidth (¶[0009]).
Moreover, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses determining scaling parameters by determining a block size Q or Q+1 (¶[00] discloses).
Su and Mamiya do not explicitly disclose signaling the denominator value by adding 1 to the denominator information. However, it is well known in the art of video compression to sing positive integer syntax elements by subtracting 1 before encoding and adding 1 upon decoding. This technique is used to improve entropy coding efficiency buy mapping the smallest valid number (e.g. 1) to code 0, which requires fewer bits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Su and Mamiya to signal the denominator information using a “minus1” format in order to reduce the number of bits encoded potentizing bitstream efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Su does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein a width of the output picture is determined by rounding up a product of multiplying the width of the input picture by the first ratio.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein a width of the output picture is determined by rounding up a product of multiplying the width of the input picture by the first ratio (¶¶[0048] and [0049] disclose if the scaling is performed with 51 dots×51 dots, a shortage of 2 dots occurs, blocks of a plurality of enlargement ratios are prepared, and these blocks are mixed so as to minimize an error and displayed; and ¶[0064] discloses whether the number of dots for a subblock becomes Q or Q+1 is decided. Based on this decided information, an addition rate M for each dot is calculated).
The motivation for combining Su and Mamiya has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Su does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein a height of the output picture is determined by rounding up product of multiplying the height of the input picture by the second ratio.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein a height of the output picture is determined by rounding up product of multiplying the height of the input picture by the second ratio (¶¶[0048] and [0049] disclose if the scaling is performed with 51 dots×51 dots, a shortage of 2 dots occurs, blocks of a plurality of enlargement ratios are prepared, and these blocks are mixed so as to minimize an error and displayed; and ¶[0064] discloses whether the number of dots for a subblock becomes Q or Q+1 is decided. Based on this decided information, an addition rate M for each dot is calculated).
The motivation for combining Su and Mamiya has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 10, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Su does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the size of the output picture relative to the size of the input picture specified by the ratio information is not equal to 1.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the size of the output picture relative to the size of the input picture specified by the ratio information is not equal to 1 (¶[0048] discloses an enlargement ratio of 1.6).
The motivation for combining Su and Mamiya has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Su discloses the image decoding method of claim 10, further comprising obtaining first information from the NNPFC SEI message ((¶[0009] - bitstream associated with the transform coefficients is then packed with side information and [0038] - one method to utilize NN (e.g. CNN) as an image restoration method in a video coding system. In other words, Su discloses obtaining an encoded side information (metadata) to control a neural-network (NN) used for image decoding (post-filter)).
Su does not explicitly disclose wherein a first value of the first information specifies that the ratio information is present, and
wherein a second value of the first information specifies that specific size information of the output picture is present.
However, Mamiya from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the wherein a first value of the first information specifies that the ratio information is present (¶[0062] discloses that at the parameter setting section 51, calculation is first performed to determine what dots of a block are to be obtained as R/P and ¶[0063] discloses that information regarding the horizontal width composed of the P dot of the original data supplied to the parameter setting section 51 can be contained, for example, in packet when block transfer is performed), and
wherein a second value of the first information specifies that specific size information of the output picture is present. (¶[0062] discloses this value can be provided in advance as a constant if an enlargement ratio is already determined.).
The motivation for combining Su and Mamiya has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a encoding method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, in view of Mamiya, and further, in view of Kim (US20150110198A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim
Regarding claim 6, Su and Mamiya disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Su does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the ratio information is encoded based on 0-th order exponential Golomb coding.
However, Kim from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the ratio information is encoded based on 0-th order exponential Golomb coding (¶[0030] discloses converting said binary data to a parameter associated with magnitude of said target transform coefficient based on k-th order Exp-Golomb coding and ¶[0022] discloses coding the Absolute-3 coefficients involves Golomb-Rice (GR) coding and 0th order Exponential-Golomb (EG0) coding).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Su and Mamiya to add the teachings of Kim as above, in order to more effectively encode and decode frame for transmission over a channel with limited bandwidth and/or limited storage capacity (Kim, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (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, 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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486