DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-12, 15-26, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) in view of Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484).
Regarding Claim 1, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses an image decoder (a decoder can decode [0023]) comprising:
circuitry (computing device 304 can be implemented as hardware, software and/or a combination of hardware and software [0039]);
and a memory connected to the circuitry (software [0039]), wherein, in operation, the circuitry:
acquires, from a bitstream (the resulting video stream [0022]) of a first layer (base layer [0032]), a first image (decode and display the base layer [0032]);
acquires, from a bitstream (the resulting video stream [0022]) of a second layer (enhancement layer [0032]), a second image (decode the enhancement layer [0032]) and specification information (metadata [0032]), the second image being a [] image (inherent) in which a plurality of rectangular regions (original content without masking [0032]) from the first image (base layer [0032]) are (encoded in the enhancement layer [0032]) [], the specification information indicating a size (ROI boundary coordinates information [0032]) of each of the rectangular regions (ROI boundary [0032]) in the second image (enhancement layer [0032]); and
generates a third image (the enhancement layer + the base layer, inherent in the SVC standard [0032], which is the typical process of decoding scalably coded video) based on the first image (base layer [0032]), second image (enhancement layer [0032]), and the specification information (ROI boundary coordinates information, flags indicating a presence of encrypted video, and information required to derive decryption keys [0032]).
Rao does not disclose, but Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) teaches the second image being a packed (packing element having a packing process [0191]) image (2D grid of Fig. 12 with minimizing unused space [0191]) in which a plurality of rectangular regions (extracted patches [0191]; rectangular patches P1 – P6, Fig. 12) … are rearranged (packing element executes packing to minimize unused space [0191]),
the specification information (occupancy map [0191]; per-patch information signaling [0202]) indicating a size of each of the rectangular regions (2D bounding box [0207]) in the second image (2D grid, [0191]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to frame-pack the ROIs of Rao as described in Aflaki because Aflaki teaches that packing the elements in the image generate a piecewise smooth image suited for compression [0196] and minimizes the unused space [0191] to improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 2, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, wherein the processing includes at least one of blurring, mosaic, and silhouette processing (blur filter [0031]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, wherein the privacy information includes at least one of a human face, a vehicle tag, and information indicating an address (face or license plate [0030]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, generating a generated image (client devices with appropriate privileges can decrypt and decode the enhancement layer) based on the image (The original content without masking can be encoded in the enhancement layer, and encrypted using encryption keys 210, video frames with masked content in the base layer [0032]) and the specification information (metadata includes ROI boundary coordinates information, flags indicating a presence of encrypted video, and information required to derive decryption keys [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, wherein the specification information includes information indicating a position and a size of the particular region in the image (ROI boundary [0032]).
Regarding Claim 6, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the specification information from a header area (The user data fields provisioned in the SEI in the H.264 AVC/SVC standards can be used to convey the metadata [0032]) of the bitstream (resulting video stream [0022]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to 6, wherein the header area includes supplemental enhancement information (SEI) (SEI in the H.264 AVC/SVC standards can be used to convey the metadata [0032]).
Regarding Claim 8, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, wherein the particular region includes a plurality of particular regions (ROIs [0032]).
Rao does not disclose, but Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) teaches the circuitry generates a packing image in which the plurality of particular regions are packed (packing process aims at mapping the extracted patches onto a 2D grid (FIG. 12), while trying to minimize the unused space, Fig. 12, [0191]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to frame-pack the ROIs of Rao as described in Aflaki because Aflaki teaches that packing the elements in the image generate a piecewise smooth image suited for compression [0196] and minimizes the unused space [0191] to improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 9, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to 8.
Rao does not disclose, but Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) teaches wherein the particular region in the packing image (packing process aims at mapping the extracted patches onto a 2D grid (FIG. 12), while trying to minimize the unused space, Fig. 12, [0191]) is included in one or more coding unit blocks (HEVC encoding having coding units comprising coding blocks [0297]) that compose a picture of the bitstream (frame-packed output pictures may be encoded into a bitstream e.g. by a video encoder into a bitstream [0153]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to frame-pack the ROIs of Rao as described in Aflaki because Aflaki teaches that packing the elements in the image generate a piecewise smooth image suited for compression [0196] and minimizes the unused space [0191] to improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 10, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to 8.
Rao does not disclose, but Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) teaches wherein the particular region in the packing image is included in either a subpicture or a tile (each patch is mapped to a sub-picture, e.g., p1 – p6 in Fig. 12; each HEVC picture is partitioned into tiles [0030]) that composes a picture of the bitstream (frame-packed output pictures may be encoded into a bitstream e.g. by a video encoder into a bitstream [0153]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to frame-pack the ROIs of Rao as described in Aflaki because Aflaki teaches that packing the elements in the image generate a piecewise smooth image suited for compression [0196] and minimizes the unused space [0191] to improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 11, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to 8, wherein the specification information includes information indicating a correspondence relationship between the particular region in the image and the particular region in the packing image (ROI boundary [0032]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to 8.
Rao does not disclose, but Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) teaches wherein a region outside the plurality of particular regions is padded in the packing image (Padding fills the empty space between patches [0196]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to frame-pack the ROIs of Rao as described in Aflaki because Aflaki teaches that packing the elements in the image generate a piecewise smooth image suited for compression [0196] and minimizes the unused space [0191] to improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 15, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to Claim 1, wherein the first image is transmitted from an image encoder to the image decoder by a base layer in a multilayer form (base layer [0032]), and the second image is transmitted from the image encoder to the image decoder by an enhancement layer in the multilayer form (enhancement layer).
Regarding Claim 16, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses an image encoder comprising:
circuitry (computing device 304 can be implemented as hardware, software and/or a combination of hardware and software [0039]);
and a memory connected to the circuitry (software [0039]), wherein, in operation, the circuitry
specifies a plurality of rectangular regions (ROI area information [0031]; ROI boundary coordinates [0032]) in a first image (masked regions in the base layer [0032]),
generates a second image (enhancement layer [0032]), the second image being a [] image (inherent) in which the plurality of rectangular regions (original content without masking [0032]) from the first image (base layer [0032]) are (encoded in the enhancement layer [0032]) [],
generates specification information (metadata [0032]) indicating a size (ROI area information [0031], ROI boundary coordinates information [0032]) of each of the rectangular regions (ROI [0031]) in the second image (enhancement layer [0032]),
encodes the first image to generate a bitstream of the first layer (video encoder 208 encodes the video frames with masked content in a base layer. [0032]), and
encodes the second image (The original content without masking can be encoded in the enhancement layer [0032]) and the specification information (The user data fields provisioned in the SEI in the H.264 AVC/SVC standards can be used to convey the metadata [0032]) to generate a bitstream of a second layer (enhancement layer + SEI [0030]-[0032]).
Rao does not disclose, but Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) teaches second image being a packed (packing element having a packing process [0191]) image (2D grid of Fig. 12 with minimizing unused space [0191]) in which the plurality of rectangular (extracted patches [0191]; rectangular patches P1 – P6, Fig. 12) … are rearranged (packing element executes packing to minimize unused space [0191]),
specification information (occupancy map [0191]; auxiliary patch information, per-patch information signaling [0202]) indicating a size of each of the rectangular regions (2D bounding box [0207]) in the second image (2D grid, [0191]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to frame-pack the ROIs of Rao as described in Aflaki because Aflaki teaches that packing the elements in the image generate a piecewise smooth image suited for compression [0196] and minimizes the unused space [0191] to improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 16.
Claim(s) 13, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) in view of Aflaki (US PG Publication 2020/0351484) and Su (US 2024/0171775 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rao (US PG Publication 2017/0076572) discloses the image decoder according to 8.
Rao does not disclose, but Su (US 2024/0171775 A1) teaches wherein the plurality of particular regions have respective partial regions that overlap each other (patch 1 and patch 2 can overlap in the optimized layout [0088]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to modify Rao, as modified by Aflaki to frame-pack the ROIs, to overlap the patches in the frame-packed image because Su teaches that the layout is optimized with minimal addition of invalid pixels [0087], improving coding efficiency.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 6/10/2026 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that in Rao, the ROI boundary coordinate information is provided only for the ROIs in the original or masked video frame, not for the enhancement layer frame. Remarks at 11. This is unpersuasive. There is no indication that the ROIs of Rao change size between the base and enhancement layers. Even if Rao only describes the boundary (i.e., size) of the ROI in the base layer, this value holds true for the enhancement layer; therefore, Rao indicates the ROI boundary (size) of the enhancement layer. As a result, Applicant’s argument that Rao sends at most metadata for masking, unmasking, and decryption (Remarks at 11) is unpersuasive. Rao expressly states, “the metadata includes… ROI boundary coordinates….” Note that the claim language only covers ROI size, and not ROI location in the enhancement layer.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not render the claimed invention obvious because Aflaki is directed to generic patch packing, which does not teach the claimed invention. Remarks at 12. This argument is not persuasive because it attacks Aflaki alone where the rejection is based on a combination of references. Rao discloses a system in which the enhancement layer data contains useful information only of ROIs, which are patches of the base layer/original video. Aflaki teaches how to efficiently compress those patches.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the combination requires more than predictable use of a known technique, or that the Office Action did not specify a teaching from Rao or Aflaki to lead a person to the modifications, or that the combination relies on impermissible hindsight, Remarks at 12-13, Aflaki teaches how and why to pursue the technique. See “occupancy map,” Aflaki at [0191]-[0218], and “minimizing unused space” … “to generate a piecewise smooth image suited for video compression,” Aflaki at [0191], [0196]. Alfaki starts with the benefit of packing: making the patches suitable for compression; then describes in detail the execution of the occupancy map and its encoding, which makes the packed frame decodable. This lays the pathway for those of ordinary skill in the art to implement the combination.
Regarding the argument that one would have to redesign Rao so that the enhancement layer carries packed ROIs. Remarks at 12. This does not demonstrate non-obviousness because the combination is motivated by a teaching from Aflaki, and the implementation is taught by Aflaki.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Du (NPL “Privacy preserving for human object in video surveillance via visual cryptography,” IEEE 2014) – H.264 flexible macroblock order encoding with authorized user for seeing the unencrypted video
Sohn (NPL “Privacy protection in video surveillance systems using scalable video coding,” IEEE 2009) – Using PPS, H.264 flexible macroblock order encoding with authorized user for seeing the unencrypted video
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights