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 18/934,050 is responsive to communications filed on 03/06/2026, in response to the Non-Final Rejection of 12/09/2026. Claims 1-4, 11-13, and 20 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. In response to communication filed on 03/06/2026, the claim objections with respect to claims 2 and 12 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment and remarks.
4. Applicant's Remarks see pages 7-9, with respect to the amendment and argument have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends and urges that cited reference does not teach or suggest “generating, based on video content, one or more film grain parameters associated with the video content” as amended in claim 1 (see pages 7-8: Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectively disagrees. Norkin explicitly discloses the film grain modeling application generates a variety of film grain parameters that model film grain in source video content. For each media title, the video streaming service provider transmits the film grain parameters along with the encoded video content to client devices (e.g., see paragraph 0018). Paragraph 0029 further discloses that the compute instance 110(1) is configured to generate any number of film grain parameter sets 170 based on the source video content 102 and the de-noised video content 122. The film grain parameters set 170 includes film grain parameters that model the film grain.
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 1-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norkin (US 2019/0066272A1) (hereinafter Norkin) (cited by IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Norkin discloses a computer-implemented method for transmitting film grain parameters to one or more client devices for use when playing back video content (e.g., see Fig. 1; abstract), the method comprising:
generating, based on video content, one or more film grain parameters associated with the video content (e.g., see paragraphs 0018-0021: The film grain modeling application generates a variety of film grain parameters that model film grain in source video content. For each media title, the video streaming service provider transmits the film grain parameters along with the encoded video content to client devices; also see paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0040),
generating, based on one or more film grain parameters associated with video content (e.g., see Fig. 1: template parameter, scaling parameter; paragraphs 0038, 0040), one or more compact representations of the one or more film grain parameters (e.g., see Fig. 1: film grain parameter set; paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0040); and
transmitting the one or more compact representations to a client application executing on a client device (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraph 0030), wherein the client application adds film grain to the video content, for playback, based on the one or more compact representations (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0058-0061: film grain synthesizer 186).
Regarding claim 2, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more film grain parameters define a plurality of scaling functions indicating how values associated with the film grain are scaled for different resolutions of video content (e.g., see abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0048-0051: linear scaling function), and the one or more compact representations include one or more linear function coefficients for predicting at least one predicted scaling function based on a first scaling function included in the plurality of scaling functions (e.g., see paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0060: linear function coefficients such as correlation coefficients; also see paragraphs 0089, 0098).
Regarding claim 3, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more compact representation further include one or more residuals between the at least one predicted scaling function (e.g., see paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0041: residual data 150; also see Fig. 2, paragraphs 0074, 0075) and at least one corresponding scaling function included in the plurality of scaling functions (e.g., see abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0048-0051: linear scaling function).
Regarding claim 4, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more compact representation further include a lossy encoding (e.g., see Fig. 1: encoder/decoder) of one or more residuals (e.g., see paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0041: residual data 150; also see Fig. 2, paragraphs 0074, 0075) between the at least one predicted scaling function and at least one corresponding scaling function included in the plurality of scaling functions (e.g., see abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0048-0051: linear scaling function).
Regarding claim 5, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more film grain parameters include a set of x-coordinate values associated with a scaling function (e.g., see Fig. 2: x & y coordinates), and wherein the one or more compact representations include a set of increments associated with the set of x-coordinate values (e.g., see paragraphs 0055, 0056, 0074).
Regarding claim 6, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the set of increments is represented as a set of differences from an offset (e.g., see paragraphs 0050, 0051, 0052: offset; also see paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0064).
Regarding claim 7, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein a first increment included in the set of increments is represented using fewer bits than a second increment included in the set of increments (e.g., see paragraphs 0006, 0064: number of bits).
Regarding claim 8, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more film grain parameters include a set of coefficients of an autoregressive model e.g., see paragraphs 0005, 0031, 0032: auto-regressive model; also see paragraphs 0042, 0044), and each coefficient included in the set of coefficients is represented in the one or more compact representations using a number of bits (e.g., see paragraphs 0006, 0064: number of bits) that is determined based on a range associated with the set of coefficients (e.g., see paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0060: linear function coefficients such as correlation coefficients; also see paragraphs 0089, 0098).
Regarding claim 9, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting metadata to the client device specifying the one or more compact representations (e.g., see paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0008: metadata such as media title; Fig. 1, paragraphs 0024, 0025, 0030; Fig. 4, paragraphs 0082, 0085, 0086).
Regarding claim 10, Norkin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more film grain parameters define at least one scaling function (e.g., see abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0048-0051: linear scaling function), and one or more y-coordinate values (e.g., see Fig. 2: x, y coordinate values; paragraphs 0055, 0056, 0074) of the at least one scaling function are represented in the one or more compact representations as one or more differences from an offset (e.g., see paragraphs 0050, 0051, 0052: offset; also see paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0064).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Norkin discloses a processor, memory, and storage device (see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0034-0037, 0115).
Regarding claim 12, it contains the limitations of claims 2 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 13, it contains the limitations of claims 3 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 14, it contains the limitations of claims 5 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 15, it contains the limitations of claims 6-7 and 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 16, it contains the limitations of claims 8 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 17, it contains the limitations of claims 9 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is a system claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the system performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Norkin discloses a processor, memory, and storage device (see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0034-0037, 0115).
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.
10. Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norkin (US 2019/0066272A1) in view of Helmrich et al., (US 2020/0389673A1) (hereinafter Helmrich) (cited by IDS).
Regarding claim 18, Norkin does not explicitly disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more compact representations include a variable-length encoding of at least one of the one or more film grain parameters.
However, Helmrich discloses wherein the one or more compact representations include a variable-length encoding of at least one of the one or more film grain parameters (e.g., see paragraphs 0289, 0340: noise parameters are coded differentially across all CTUs and TUs using mapped unary coding and CABAC coding)
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 Norkin to add the teachings of Helmrich as above, in order to provide an encoder apparatus for encoding a picture into a data stream is configured to determine at least one noise parameter providing noise information on the transform within the zero-quantized portion (see abstract: Helmrich).
Regarding claim 19, Norkin does not explicitly disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more compact representations include at least one exp-Golomb code.
However, Helmrich discloses wherein the one or more compact representations include at least one exp-Golomb code (e.g., see paragraphs 0289, 0340: CABAC encoding implies the presence of exp-Golomb codes).
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 Norkin to add the teachings of Helmrich as above, in order to provide an encoder apparatus for encoding a picture into a data stream is configured to determine at least one noise parameter providing noise information on the transform within the zero-quantized portion (see abstract: Helmrich).
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. 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