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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 and 02/24/20226 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 112 Remarks
Claim limitations “an input information buffering and preprocessing unit for buffering and preprocessing, a viewport-atlas correlation calculation unit for calculating, a group or atlas selection unit for selecting,” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use non-structural term(s) “input information buffering and preprocessing unit, viewport-atlas correction calculation unit, group or atlas selection unit” coupled with functional language “[configured] for” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the non-structural terms are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 10 interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “When an element in the present disclosure is referred to as being "connected" or "linked" to another element, it should be understood that it may be directly connected or linked to that another element, but there may be another element between them. Meanwhile, when an element is referred to as being "directly connected" or "directly linked" to another element, it should be understood that there is no another element between them. As construction units shown in an embodiment of the present disclosure are independently shown to represent different characteristic functions, it does not mean that each construction unit is composed in a construction unit of separate hardware or one software,” - ¶0030-0031.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 recites “computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream” which is left open-ended in the specifications which can lead to transitory subject matter. However, if along with what the claim already states, the “computer readable storage medium” was stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium the claim would be reconsidered as statutory subject matter.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0048764).
In regard to claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 19 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
The examiner recommends amending the claim language to include instructions, that when executed by a processor, execute the steps claimed.
Therefore, claim 19 is anticipated by Ryu, as Ryu discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Ryu discloses, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (See ¶0159 and 0162).
In regards to claim 1, Ryu additionally teaches a viewport-based atlas selection method (See Abstract), the method comprising:
buffering and preprocessing metadata and user view information (See ¶0044-0045, 54-0059 and 0091 wherein the metadata may be provided along with atlas patch occupancy map, which are used together to provide video content according to the viewer’s movement and view angle, which includes generation and synthesization of patch view occupancy map, additional view data, and other information with regards to the final view video shown to the user; it is noted as bitstream information comes in, memory such as in 0159 and 0162 may of course be used in the processing of information as per understood by one of ordinary skill in the art);
based on the metadata and the user view information, calculating a correlation value representing a correlation at a user view position for each atlas (See ¶0044-0045, 0091 and 0095); and
based on the correlation value, selecting a group or an atlas used for MIV decoding and view image synthesis (See ¶0006, 0044-0045, 0047-0052 and 0054).
In regards to claim 10, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Ryu, wherein the device is taught as part of the processing system as seen in ¶0018.
In regards to claim 19, the claim is additionally rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Ryu, wherein the computer readable medium as seen in ¶0159 and 0162.
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, 7, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0048764) in view of Fleureau et al. (“Fleu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0377302).
In regards to claim 2, Ryu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a baseline between a viewport and each camera.
In a similar endeavor Fleu teaches wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a baseline between a viewport and each camera (See ¶0111 wherein the extrinsic and intrinsic camera parameters are taken into consideration for the metadata of the overall atlas image and associating each patch with the view it is extracted from, accordingly the viewport is generated with the parameters of the view and patch in mind for the current point of view of the user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Fleu into Ryu because it allows for appropriate imaging in consideration of such parameters with regards to the cameras, associated views and overall proper alignment between the image data and other data as described in ¶0111, thus allowing for a more precise and correct imaging output.
In regards to claim 7, Ryu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a visibility for each camera for a viewport.
In a similar endeavor Fleu teaches wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a visibility for each camera for a viewport (See ¶0011-0017, 0102-0106 and 0109).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Fleu into Ryu because it allows for appropriate imaging in consideration of such parameters with regards to the cameras, associated views and overall proper alignment between the image data and other data as described in ¶0111, thus allowing for a more precise and correct imaging output.
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Ryu in view of Fleu.
In regards to claim 16, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 7 by Ryu in view of Fleu.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0048764) in view of Ryu et al. (“Ryu2”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0343545).
In regards to claim 3, Ryu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein: when a camera grouping is regularly performed based on a camera arrangement structure, selecting the group or the atlas is performed by considering only a decision boundary without considering a baseline with all cameras.
In a similar endeavor Ryu2 teaches wherein: when a camera grouping is regularly performed based on a camera arrangement structure, selecting the group or the atlas is performed by considering only a decision boundary without considering a baseline with all cameras (See ¶0081).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ryu2 into Ryu because it allows for a tile or subpicture division scheme via boundaries and allows for selection of tiles accordingly as described in at least ¶0081.
In regards to claim 4, Ryu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein: the selected group or atlas is selected as a group or an atlas having a highest correlation value with the user view position among a plurality of groups or atlases, the plurality of groups or atlases are divided by the decision boundary (See ¶0006 and 0045-0052 wherein the highest correlation is found and a proper view for the user [based on their current movement and gaze/viewpoint] is synthesized using the plurality of groups from the created atlas).
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Ryu in view of Ryu2.
In regards to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 4 by Ryu in view of Ryu2.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0048764) in view of Ryu et al. (“Ryu3”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0223731)
In regards to claim 6, Ryu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a view direction difference between a viewport and each camera.
In a similar endeavor Ryu3 teaches wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a view direction difference between a viewport and each camera (See ¶0046 in view of 0064, 0071 and 0073 wherein the difference between the source views [camera] and the view of the user is what creates the viewpoint/view which is synthesized/generated by the system).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ryu3 into Ryu because it allows for proper generation of a high-bitrate bitstream including data taken from all the source views and creation of reconstructed views as described in at least ¶0071, which may have the additional effect of reducing overhead as redundant portions may be removed.
In regards to claim 9, Ryu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a baseline between a viewport and each camera, a view direction difference between the viewport and the each camera and a visibility for the each camera for the viewport.
In a similar endeavor Ryu3 teaches wherein: selecting the group or the atlas is performed based on a baseline between a viewport and each camera, a view direction difference between the viewport and the each camera and a visibility for the each camera for the viewport (See ¶0046 in view of 0064, 0071 and 0073 wherein the difference between the source views [camera] and the view of the user is what creates the viewpoint/view which is synthesized/generated by the system).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ryu3 into Ryu because it allows for proper generation of a high-bitrate bitstream including data taken from all the source views and creation of reconstructed views as described in at least ¶0071, which may have the additional effect of reducing overhead as redundant portions may be removed.
In regards to claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 6 by Ryu in view of Ryu3.
In regards to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 9 by Ryu in view of Ryu3.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0048764) in view of Fleureau et al. (“Fleu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0377302) and Roimela et al. (“Roi”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0281879).
In regards to claim 8, Ryu fails to teach the method of claim 7, wherein: the visibility is determined based on how many sample points within a frustum space of the each camera are projected within an image plane of the each camera.
In a similar endeavor Roi teaches wherein: the visibility is determined based on how many sample points within a frustum space of the each camera are projected within an image plane of the each camera (See for example ¶0157-0190 which provide differing examples whereby groups/tiles may be specified by samples available for viewpoints).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Roi into Ryu because it allows for consideration of view spaces with those of sample points as seen in at least ¶0157-0190.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 8 by Ryu in view of Roi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 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:
The prior art of record (in particular, Ryu et al. [U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0048764]) do not disclose, with respect to claim 5, wherein during the selection process of the proper group or atlas, a highest correlation value at the user view position exceeds a threshold from a decision boundary of a group or atlas having a highest correlation value with a previous user view position, and selecting that which has the highest correlation, however if the threshold is not exceeded, then selecting from that which had the highest correlation value with the previous user position. The closest prior art found was Salahieh et al. [U.S. Patent No. 11,432,009] which does indeed take into consideration an adaptable threshold for deciding whether to include a view by pruning views or portions thereof in order to une quality and bitrate, however it does not take into a consideration the previous corresponding best viewpoint when the threshold is not exceeded. As such, the prior art fails to appropriately teach atlas selection to this specificity, especially in regards to taking into consideration a threshold from which either a current highest correlation value viewpoint is chosen or that of the previous user view position is chose. The same reasoning applies to claim 14 mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights