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 § 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.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US20190295227A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses A method of selecting from a picture a patch for training a machine learning, (ML) model used for encoding or decoding video data, the method comprising: selecting a first position of the patch such that the first position of the patch is outside of a defined area (¶[0087] discloses that the training patches are located outside the training region of interest (e.g., out-patches) and are associated with a pixel inside the training region of interest (e.g., an in-pixel). In an example, the training patches are labeled, where the label identifies the pixel and locations of the pixel associated with the training patches); and training the ML model using sample data which is obtained based on the selected first position (¶¶[0087]-[0090] and Fig. 12 disclosing that the neural network is trained using those patches (sample data) with loss and parameters updates).
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 24, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Hashimoto et al. (US6897858B), hereinafter referred to as Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 24, Wang discloses a method of training a machine learning (ML) model for encoding or decoding video data, the method comprising (¶[0023] discloses the training of the neural network can be made less complex while still allowing the efficient capture of the needed visual information for reconstructing the patches)
Wang does not explicitly disclose retrieving from a storage a first file containing first segment data of a first segment included in a picture, wherein the first segment is smaller than the picture
However, Hashimoto from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses retrieving from a storage a first file containing first segment data of a first segment included in a picture, wherein the first segment is smaller than the picture (Col. 14:35-Col. 15:27 discloses that the compressed image 1545 is a binary string of data formed by header 1710 followed by N (the number of tiles used by tiling unit 1510) compressed tiles 1545_1, 1545_2, ... 1545_N.).
Hashimoto also discloses selecting a subset of smaller portions that contain relevant data and decompressing only those portions (Col. 15:24-25 disclosing select and decompress a subset of the compressed tiles)
Furthermore, Wang discloses based at least on the first segment data, obtaining patch data of a patch which is a part of the first segment (¶[0087] discloses inputting training patches from a training image to the neural network. The training image includes a training region of interest. The training patches are located outside the training region of interest (e.g., out-patches), and
using the patch data, training the ML model (¶[0087] discloses inputting training patches from a training image to the neural network; ¶[0089] discloses updating a loss function of the neural network; and ¶[0090] discloses updating parameters of the neural network).
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 Wang to add the teachings of Hashimoto as above, in order to efficiently texture map schemes and compression schemes for environment mapping and immersive videos (Hashimoto, Col.4:29-31).
Regarding claim 25, Wang and Hashimoto disclose all the limitations of claim 24, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 24, wherein the storage is configured to store a second file which contains second segment data of a second segment included in the picture the patch is a part of the second segment, and; patch data is obtained by retrieving the first file without retrieving the second file.
However, Hashimoto from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the storage is configured to store a second file which contains second segment data of a second segment included in the picture(Col. 15:24-25 disclosing select and decompress a subset of the compressed tiles). patch data is obtained by retrieving the first file without retrieving the second file (Col. 16:13-16 discloses a decompression
unit that decompresses only a portion … based on view window)
The motivation for combining Wang and Hashimoto has been discussed in connection with claim 24, above.
Regarding claim 29, Wang and Hashimoto disclose all the limitations of claim 24, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 24, wherein the first file is a compressed file stored in the storage, and the method further comprises decompressing the first file to obtain the first segment data.
However, Hashimoto from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the first file is a compressed file stored in the storage (Col. 15:1-13 discloses the embodiment … uses JPEG compression), and
the method further comprises decompressing the first file to obtain the first segment data Col. 16:13-16 discloses a decompression unit that decompresses only a portion; and (Col. 15:24-25 disclosing select and decompress a subset of the compressed tiles).
The motivation for combining Wang and Hashimoto has been discussed in connection with claim 24, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 26 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome all pending rejections and all pending objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to generating encoded video data and/or decoded video data.
Applicant has uniquely claimed distinct features in the independent claim 1, which in combination with the other features are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record. The distinct features include “wherein each of said one or more converted coordinates of the patch is an integer multiple of 2p, where p is an integer.”
Wang, the closest prior art of record, discloses many of the limitations of the claims. However, Wang, either, individually or in combination with other prior art of record (See PTO-892), fails to anticipate or render obvious the above-cited limitations.
The dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 9-11 are allowed for the same reasons as those supporting the allowability of the corresponding independent claims.
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