DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 01/16/2025, wherein claims 26-45 are pending and are examined as follows. Claims 1-25 were previously canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 01/16/2025 and 02/19/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein one or more…” should read “wherein the one or more…” as indicated in claim 27. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claims 36-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “The computer-readable medium of claim…”. Although these all depend on claim 35 which recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, it is recommended to include “non-transitory” in Claims 36-40 for consistency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 26, 31, 34, 35, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakii et al. US 2005/0237380 A1, in view of Richter et al. US 2023/0232047 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kakii and Richter, respectively.
Regarding claim 26. (New) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Kakii teaches and/or suggests “An apparatus to decode video data encoded using JPEG XS [Although Kakii teaches a decoding method for image data, it is based on JPEG 2000, hereinafter referred to as JP2 (e.g. ¶0012, and ¶0020). Please see Richter below for direct support regarding JPEG XS], the apparatus comprising: memory; instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the instructions to [Kakii teaches a decoding method that can be executed by a computer (e.g. ¶0009, ¶0029, ¶0075)]: identify a bitstream from a device, the bitstream encoded using JPEG XS [Given Kakii’s teachings are based on JP2, please see Richter below for direct support of JPEG XS]; determine that a first slice of a video frame of the bitstream is located within a region of interest of the video frame [Although Kakii does not explicitly refer to the term “slice”, Kakii teaches rectangular regions (e.g. ¶0011), which although are associated with tiling in JP2 (¶0012), are related to slices in the field of video coding and would therefore be within the level of skill in the art. A rectangular sub-region may be grouped into the ROI (¶0013, 0082)]; determine that a second slice of the video frame is not located within the region of interest of the video frame [Rectangular sub-regions/regions may be grouped into the non-ROI (¶0013, ¶0016)]; discard the second slice based on the determination that the second slice is not located within the region of interest of the video frame [¶0016, ¶0020, ¶0080, ¶0087, and ¶0088 show, for e.g., the rectangular regions in the non-ROI may be set to a code length of 0, which means the non-ROI is not coded. This in turn can be construed as being discarded from the coding process]; apply an inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice based on the determination that the first slice is located within the region of interest of the video frame [Only rectangular regions belonging to the ROI are coded. See for e.g. ¶0089 and ¶0090 regarding DWT. Although an inverse DWT is not mentioned, this is within the level of skill in the art of video coding, i.e. if a DWT is applied, then an iDWT must be employed to decode the data. Nonetheless, please refer to Richter below regarding the inverse DWT]; and generate a reconstructed video frame including the first slice after the application of the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice [Based on Kakii’s decoding method and the use of performing DWT, a generated reconstructed image can be reconstructed.] wherein the second slice is absent from the reconstructed video frame.” [Since the rectangular region for the non-ROI is not coded (see above), it will not be a part of the reconstructed image] Although Kakii’s teachings are deemed relevant, they pertain to JP2, not JPEG XS as required above. Thus, Richter from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the limitation “An apparatus to decode video data encoded using JPEG XS, the apparatus comprising: memory; instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the instructions to: identify a bitstream from a device, the bitstream encoded using JPEG XS” [See e.g. ¶0034, ¶0040, and ¶0066, where Richter’s teachings for coding video (figs. 1-2) may be applied in the framework of JPEG XS]. As to “the inverse wavelet transformation” [See for e.g. ¶0035 of Richter] Although Kakii’s teachings are deemed relevant in light of the aforementioned features given their BRI, they are based on JP2 and not JPEG-XS as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Kakii (abstract) to add the teachings of Richter based on the framework of JPEG-XS which provides an enhanced tradeoff between a good rate-distortion-relation of the coded video data and low buffer requirements (¶0003).
Regarding claim 31. (New) Kakii and Richter teach all the limitations of claim 26, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kakii further teaches and/or suggests “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: determine that a third slice of the video frame is located within the region of interest of the video frame; and apply the inverse wavelet transformation to the third slice based on the determination that the third slice is located within a region of interest of the video frame, wherein the reconstructed video frame includes the third slice after the application of the inverse wavelet transformation to the third slice.” [Although Kakii does not explicitly refer to a “third slice”, Kakii’s teachings do apply to a rectangular region(s) as indicated in claim 26. As such, a rectangular region of a plurality of rectangular regions can be construed as a “third slice”, “fourth slice”, etc. The aforementioned features are therefore disclosed/suggested by the same citations as presented in claim 26 above]
Regarding claim 34. (New) Kakii and Richter teach all the limitations of claim 26, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kakii further teaches and/or suggests “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is not to apply the inverse wavelet transformation to the second slice based on the determination that the second slice is not located within the region of interest of the video frame.” [Same citations in claim 26 with respect to the non-ROI not being coded, where the code length of the corresponding regions may be set to 0. Unlike the regions in the ROI to which the DWT is applied, no coding is performed]
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of claim 1. As to the corresponding hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0029 of Kakii for support. Also refer to Claim 10 of Kakii.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the apparatus of claim 31.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the apparatus of claim 1.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakii, in view of Richter, and in further view of Guntur et al. US 2015/0208103 A1, hereinafter referred to as Guntur.
Regarding Claim 32. (New) Kakii and Richter teach all the limitations of claim 31, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Kakii and Richter do not appear to address the features of claim 32. Guntur on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to crop the first slice and the third slice to generate the reconstructed video frame.” [See for e.g. ¶0090 with respect to cropping and scaling decoded tiles corresponding to the ROI requested by the user. Since tiles and slices are related (e.g. fig. 5B), Guntar’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the aforementioned features] Given Guntur’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Kakii and the JPEG-XS framework of Richter, to add the live stream control features of Guntur above that enables a viewer to zoom into an arbitrary region of interest and pan to view another region of interest (¶0003), thus giving the viewer more flexibility over their viewing experience.
Regarding Claim 33. (New) Kakii and Richter teach all the limitations of claim 31, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Kakii and Richter do not appear to address the features of claim 33. Guntur on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to increase a scale of the first slice and the third slice to generate the reconstructed video frame.” [Same as claim 32, since ¶0090 also describes scaling decoded tiles corresponding to the ROI requested by the user.] The motivation for combining Kakii, Richter, and Guntur has been discussed in connection with claim 32, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
x. Claims 27-30, 36-39, and 42-45 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. In particular, the art of record (notably Kakii and Richter) do not reasonably teach and/or suggest the limitation of claims 27, 36, and 42, i.e. “identify a slice coding mode indicator in a picture header of the bitstream; and determine that the slice coding mode indicator has a value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.” (emphasis added). The closest prior art found were Descampe et al. “JPEG XS—A New Standard for Visually Lossless Low-Latency Lightweight Image Coding”, and Bruylants et al. “RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JEG XS) (RFC9134)”, however, both show that the wavelet transformation runs across slices as opposed to it being done on a per-slice basis as required. See for e.g. Sect. 3.1 (Image Data Structures) on pg. 5 of Bruylants et al. The work of Kim et al. US 2021/0344921 A1 also discusses the JPEG XS standard (e.g. ¶0045), however, there is no clear indication that it addresses the aforementioned features. Thus, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
27. (New) The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: identify a slice coding mode indicator in a picture header of the bitstream; and determine that the slice coding mode indicator has a value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.
28. (New) The apparatus of claim 27, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to apply the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.
29. (New) The apparatus of claim 27, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: identify a slice identifier of the first slice in a payload header of the bitstream; determine, based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries, that the slice identifier is included within a range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame; and apply the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice based on the determination that the slice identifier is included within the range of region of interest- covered slices of the video frame.
30. (New) The apparatus of claim 27, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: identify a slice identifier of the second slice in a payload header of the bitstream; determine, based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries, that the slice identifier is not within a range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame; and discard the second slice based on the determination that the slice identifier is not within the range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame.
36. (New) The computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: identify a slice coding mode indicator in a picture header of the bitstream; and determine that the slice coding mode indicator has a value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.
37. (New) The computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to apply the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.
38. (New) The computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: identify a slice identifier of the first slice in a payload header of the bitstream; determine, based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries, that the slice identifier is included within a range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame; and apply the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice based on the determination that the slice identifier is included within the range of region of interest- covered slices of the video frame.
39. (New) The computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: identify a slice identifier of the second slice in a payload header of the bitstream; determine, based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries, that the slice identifier is not within a range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame; and discard the second slice based on the determination that the slice identifier is not within the range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame.
42. (New) The method of claim 41, including: identifying a slice coding mode indicator in a picture header of the bitstream; and determining that the slice coding mode indicator has a value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.
43. (New) The method of claim 42, wherein the applying of the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice is based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries.
44. (New) The method of claim 42, including: identifying a slice identifier of the first slice in a payload header of the bitstream; and determining, based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries, that the slice identifier is included within a range of region of interest- covered slices of the video frame, wherein the applying of the inverse wavelet transformation to the first slice is based on the determination that the slice identifier is included within the range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame.
45. (New) The method of claim 42, including: identifying a slice identifier of the second slice in a payload header of the bitstream; and determining, based on the determination that the slice coding mode indicator has the value indicating that wavelet transformation is per-slice and not across slice boundaries, that the slice identifier is not within a range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame, wherein the discarding of the second slice is based on the determination that the slice identifier is not within the range of region of interest-covered slices of the video frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references. For e.g., Obert et al. US 2024/0078628 A1 describe a wavelet-based encoder/decoder that is associated with JPEG XS and has reduced computational costs (e.g. ¶0038). Further, please see the work of Kim et al. US 2021/0344921 A1 which also discuss processing video based on the JPEG-XS standard (e.g. fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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 at 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 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights