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 § 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a computer readable recording medium. A computer readable recording medium may include transitory and non-transitory forms of signal transmission. Transitory forms of signal transmission, which may include propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave, are not directed to any of the statutory categories listed above. See MPEP 2106.3(I). Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 20 to recite a non-transitory- computer readable recording medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tourapis et al. (US 2020/0007867 A1, referred to herein as “Tourapis”) in view of Une et al. (US 2017/0064312 A1, referred to herein as “Une”).
Regarding claim 1, Tourapis discloses: A method of encoding an image (Tourapis: paragraphs [0004] – [0006], disclosing an encoding method), the method comprising:
performing a low gradational conversion for an original depth image of a first bit depth to generate a first depth image of a second bit depth (Tourapis: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0050] – [0053], disclosing conversion of an input image of N-bit pixel values—such as 16-bit pixel values—into an image of M-bit pixel values, where N is a value greater than M; note that paragraph [0129] of Applicant’s Specification defines “a low gradational conversion” as “a conversion for reducing the number of bits of an image” and thus the conversion disclosed by Tourapis is a low gradational conversion because it reduces the number of bits)…;
Tourapis does not explicitly disclose:
encoding the first depth image through a color image of a third bit depth,
wherein the third bit depth is smaller than the second bit depth.
However, Une discloses:
encoding the first depth image through a color image of a third bit depth (Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0044] – [0049], disclosing that a bit-depth image may be decomposed into smaller bit-depth images and handled as color image components during encoding),
wherein the third bit depth is smaller than the second bit depth (Une: paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing that the image may be converted from a 12-bit gradation to an 8-bit gradation).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the color image encoding of Une in the method of Tourapis.
One would have been motivated to modify Tourapis in this manner in order to achieve compression of higher bit-depth images in point cloud compression using lower bit-depth encoding algorithms without sub-par performance (Une: paragraphs [0003], [0042], [0048] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Tourapis and Une disclose: The method of Claim 1, wherein:
information of bits corresponding to a third bit depth in the first depth image is allocated to a luma channel of the color image (Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing bits allocated to the luma channel of the color image),
information of residual bits not allocated to the luma channel in the first depth image is allocated to a chroma channel of the color image (Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing bits allocated to the chroma channel of the color image).
The motivation for combining Tourapis and Une has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Tourapis and Une disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein: a second depth image of the third bit depth generated by performing the low gradational conversion for the original depth image is allocated to a luma channel of the color image (Tourapis: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0050] – [0053], disclosing conversion of an input image into an image of fewer bits; Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing bits allocated to the luma channel of the color image).
The motivation for combining Tourapis and Une has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, Tourapis and Une disclose: A method of decoding an image (Tourapis: paragraphs [0007] – [0009], disclosing a decoding method), the method comprising:
decoding a color image of a first bit depth (Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0044] – [0049], disclosing that a bit-depth image may be decomposed into smaller bit-depth images and handled as color image components during encoding; paragraphs [0038] – [0039], disclosing decoding of the color image at a bit-depth);
reconstructing a first depth image of a second bit depth from the decoded color image (Une: paragraph [0060], disclosing a synthesis unit to reconstruct the bit-depth image from decoded color data); and
reconstructing a second depth image of a third bit depth by performing a high gradational conversion for the first depth image (Tourapis: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0050] – [0053], disclosing conversion of an input image of N-bit pixel values—such as 16-bit pixel values—into an image of M-bit pixel values, where N is a value greater than M; Fig. 6, paragraphs [0092] – [0098], disclosing reconstruction of the N-bit pixel value image),
wherein the first bit depth is smaller than the second bit depth (Tourapis: paragraphs [0050] – [0053], disclosing where N is a value greater than M; Fig. 6, paragraphs [0092] – [0098], disclosing reconstruction of the N-bit pixel value image).
The motivation for combining Tourapis and Une has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, Tourapis and Une disclose: The method of claim 11, wherein: information of bits corresponding to a first bit depth in the first depth image is decoded from a luma channel of the color image (Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing bits allocated to the luma channel of the color image), information of residual bits not allocated to the luma channel in the first depth image is decoded from a chroma channel of the color image (Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing bits allocated to the chroma channel of the color image).
The motivation for combining Tourapis and Une has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 16, Tourapis and Une disclose: The method of claim 11, wherein: a third depth image of the first bit depth generated by performing a low gradational conversion for an original depth image is decoded from a luma channel of the color image (Tourapis: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0050] – [0053], disclosing conversion of an input image into an image of fewer bits; Une: Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0045] – [0047], disclosing bits allocated to the luma channel of the color image).
The motivation for combining Tourapis and Une has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitaitons to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Tourapis discloses implementation via computer-readable medium in paragraph [0011].)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-15 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where information representing a number of residual bits allocated to the chroma channel is encoded as metadata.
Regarding claim 4, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where a value of pixels in the chroma channel is centralized.
Regarding claim 5, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the centralization adds a median value of the third bit depth to a pixel value.
Regarding claims 7-9, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where a difference image between third depth images generated by performing a high gradational conversion for the first depth image and the second depth image to the second bit depth is allocated to a chroma channel of the color image.
Regarding claim 10, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where a flag representing whether a depth image is colorized and encoded is encoded as metadata.
Regarding claim 13, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where information representing a number of residual bits allocated to the chroma channel is signaled as metadata.
Regarding claim 14, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the first depth image is reconstructed by decentralizing a value of pixels in the chroma channel.
Regarding claim 15, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the decentralization subtracts a median value of the first bit depth from a pixel value.
Regarding claims 17-19, Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where a difference image is decoded from a chroma channel of the color image, the second depth image is reconstructed by adding the difference image to the third depth image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/