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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites classifying, based on a first threshold, first samples neighboring a reference block into at least a first group and a second group; classifying, based on a second threshold, second samples corresponding to the first samples and neighboring a current block into at least the first group and the second group; determining a first filter based on first sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the first group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the first group; determining a second filter based on second sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the second group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the second group; determining a prediction block based on applying at least the first and second filters to the reference block; and coding the current block based on the prediction block.
The limitation of classifying, based on a first threshold, first samples neighboring a reference block into at least a first group and a second group, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – determining a prediction block based on applying at least the first and second filters to the reference block; and coding the current block based on the prediction block. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by US 20180077426 A1-Zhang et al (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method comprising:
classifying, based on a first threshold, first samples neighboring a reference block into at least a first group and a second group ([0135], wherein threshold levels for each classification group; [0137], classifying samples into different groups; [0138-0140]);
classifying, based on a second threshold, second samples corresponding to the first samples and neighboring a current block into at least the first group and the second group ([0135], wherein threshold levels for each classification group; [0137], classifying samples into different groups; [0138-0140]));
determining a first filter based on first sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the first group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the first group ([0129], wherein each group of sampled pairs are used to derive filter alpha and Beta; [0174-0178] uses different filters for different samples));
determining a second filter based on second sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the second group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the second group (([0129], wherein each group of sampled pairs are used to derive filter alpha and Beta; [0174-0178] uses different filters for different samples);
determining a prediction block based on applying at least the first and second filters to the reference block ([0162], final prediction block based on applying different filtering models); and
coding the current block based on the prediction block ([0052], encoding or decoding).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first threshold is determined based on: an average of intensity values of the first samples ([0133], wherein based on intensities of the values of the samples; ; or
an average of a minimum intensity value of the first samples and a maximum intensity value of the first
samples ([0269]); and
the second threshold is determined based on:
an average of intensity values of the second samples([0133], wherein based on intensities of the values of the samples; or
an average of a minimum intensity value of the second samples and a maximum intensity value of the
second samples([0269]).
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 9, Device with one or more processors and memory (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180077426 A1-Zhang et al (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”), in view of 20170049311 A1-Borovinskih et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Boro”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Zhang fails to disclose the first sample pairs exclude first non-matching sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the first group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the second group; and the second sample pairs exclude second non-matching sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the second group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the first group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boro discloses the first sample pairs exclude first non-matching sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the first group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the second group ([0049-0050], wherein intensity probabilities computed for randomly selected pixels of the two images I.sub.1 and I.sub.2 and joint intensity probabilities for pairs of matching pixels selected. This is interpreted as excluding non-matching pairs of samples); and the second sample pairs exclude second non-matching sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the second group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the first group ([0049-0050], wherein intensity probabilities computed for randomly selected pixels of the two images I.sub.1 and I.sub.2 and joint intensity probabilities for pairs of matching pixels selected. This is interpreted as excluding non-matching pairs of samples)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to disclose the first sample pairs exclude first non-matching sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the first group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the second group; and the second sample pairs exclude second non-matching sample pairs of samples, of the first samples, classified in the second group and corresponding samples, of the second samples, classified in the first group as taught by Boro, to generate correlation coefficients and an aggregate correlation coefficient that will provide the best representative image for processing ([0037], Boro).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Zhang fails to disclose wherein: the first threshold is determined to result in:a minimum intra-class intensity variance when the first threshold is applied to the first samples; or a maximum inter-class intensity variance when the first threshold is applied to the first samples; and the second threshold is determined to result in: a minimum intra-class intensity variance when the second threshold is applied to the second samples; or a maximum inter-class intensity variance when the second threshold is applied to the second samples.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boro discloses wherein: the first threshold is determined to result in: a minimum intra-class intensity variance when the first threshold is applied to the first samples ([0042], wherein the threshold value is determined using well-known Otsu's well-known thresholding method, in which image pixels are partitioned into two classes on the assumption that the intensity-value distribution of the pixels can be modeled as a bi-modal distribution. Otsu's method seeks a threshold that minimizes the intra-class variance, which is the weighted sum of the intensity-value variances of the two classes); or a maximum inter-class intensity variance when the first threshold is applied to the first samples; and the second threshold is determined to result in: a minimum intra-class intensity variance when the second threshold is applied to the second samples; or a maximum inter-class intensity variance when the second threshold is applied to the second samples.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to disclose wherein: the first threshold is determined to result in:a minimum intra-class intensity variance when the first threshold is applied to the first samples; or a maximum inter-class intensity variance when the first threshold is applied to the first samples; and the second threshold is determined to result in: a minimum intra-class intensity variance when the second threshold is applied to the second samples; or a maximum inter-class intensity variance when the second threshold is applied to the second samples as taught by Boro, to.generate correlation coefficients and an aggregate correlation coefficient that will provide the best representative image for processing ([0037], Boro).
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-15, 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights