DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claim 24. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose “based at least on the first segment data of the first segment included in the picture, obtaining patch data of a patch which is a part of the first segment included in the picture.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant’ argument addresses Wang alone rather than the combined teachings of Wang and Hashimoto. Wang teaches obtaining training patches from a training image and using the patches to train a neural network (See Wang ¶¶ [0087], [0089]–[0090]).
Hashimoto supplies the segment based storage and retrieval arrangement. Specifically, Hashimoto teaches dividing image 1505 into a plurality of smaller tiles, individually compressing each tile, storing the compressed tile data in a compressed image, and selecting and decompressing relevant tiles (See Hashimoto, Col. 14:10–14 and 26–61; Col. 15: 14–27; Figs. 16–19; and Claim 1). Thus, Hashimoto teaches a first segment included in the picture, first-segment data corresponding to that segment, and retrieval and decompression of the selected segment data.
Accordingly, the combined references teach or suggest the disputed limitation, and the rejection of claim 24 is maintained.
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 et al. (US20190295227A1), hereinafter referred to as 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)
obtaining patch data of a patch (¶ [0087] discloses training patches obtained from a trained image and input to the neural network)
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).
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 included in the picture is smaller than the picture, based at least on the first segment data of the first segment included in the picture, obtaining patch data of a patch which is a part of the first segment included in 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 included in the picture 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.).
based at least on the first segment data of the first segment included in the picture, obtaining patch data of a patch which is a part of the first segment included in the picture (Col. 14:10–14 and 26–61; Col. 15: 14–27; Figs. 16–19; and Claim 1. See also reply to arguments above with respect to this limitation)
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 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, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 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.”
Applicant has uniquely claimed distinct features in the independent claim 13, which in combination with the other features are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record. The distinct features include “wherein the defined area is located between sample positions 0 and 2p - 1, 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
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 action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of 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.
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 - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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
Prosecution Insights