DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an application filed 2/13/2025, wherein claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and being examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 2/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grois et al. ("Proposed Text: Film Grain Synthesis Technology for Video Applications (Draft 3)", Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE, 20221020 - 20221028, No. JVET-AB0042-v2, m60721, 23 October 2022). Grois was cited in the IDS filed 2/13/2025.
In regard to claim 1, Grois discloses a method for video decoding [section 6.3; reconstruct an approximation of the film grain during or after the decoding process], the method comprising:
obtaining luma values associated with a reconstructed video frame [Fig.7. section 7.4.1; decoded luma… sample. Section 7.4.2.4; Y is the reconstructed value of luma (before adding film grain)];
generating representative luma values based on the luma values associated with the reconstructed video frame [section 7.4.1; intensity interval the luma or chroma sample belongs to. Section 7.4.2.4; Y' is the luma re-noised with film grain… index depends on both the Cb and luma components for the pixel. Yav is the average luma corresponding to the chroma sample, taken from one line of samples. Fig.18];
storing the representative luma values associated with the reconstructed video frame in a memory [section 7.1; storing neighbouring lines section 7.4.2.4; f(Y) is represented with the piecewise-linear function that can be implemented as a pre-computed look-up table (LUT). section 7.2.4.2; Computing an average over a sub-block requires line buffers. Section 7.3.1.4; 7-line buffer to compute the 8x8 average];
obtaining noise pixel data associated with the reconstructed video frame [section 7.1; gaussian noise generation. section 7.4.2.1; 64x64 film grain template is generated for the luma component. For YCbCr 4:2:0 video, the chroma grain template of size 32x32 is generated for each chroma component. Section 7.3.1.2 Fig.8];
generating, using the representative luma values and the noise pixel data, chroma film grain noise pixels associated with the reconstructed video frame [section 7.4.2.2; AR models for chroma components have an additional AR coefficient to capture the correlation between the chroma component grain and a collocated luma sample grain. Section 7.4.2.4; index corresponding to a Cb component scaling function. The index depends on both the Cb and luma components for the pixel. Yav is the average luma corresponding to the chroma sample. Section 7.3.1.4]; and
applying the chroma film grain noise pixels to the reconstructed video frame [section 7.4.2.6; generated film grain is consecutively applied for each 32x32 luma block (16x16 chroma block) of reconstructed video samples, in raster scan order, using additive blending. section 7.4.1; output luma or chroma sample is generated by blending the decoded luma or chroma sample with the film grain sample. Fig.7, Fig.8].
In regard to claim 2, Grois discloses the method of claim 1. Grois further discloses,
wherein the representative luma values are one or more average luma values associated with the reconstructed video frame [section 7.2.4.1, section 7.4.2.4].
In regard to claim 3, Grois discloses the method of claim 1. Grois further discloses, further comprising:
identifying a block of pixels in the representative luma values associated with the reconstructed video frame [section 7.4.1, Fig.7, Fig.8, Fig.18].
In regard to claim 4, Grois discloses the method of claim 3. Grois further discloses,
wherein the reconstructed video frame is a first tile of the reconstructed video frame, wherein the block of pixels in the representative luma values are partially selected from a second tile of the reconstructed video frame that is adjacent to the first tile [section 7.4.1, section 7.4.2.2, section 7.4.2.4, Fig.7. Fig.8. Fig.10, Fig. 19].
In regard to claim 7, Grois discloses the method of claim 1. Grois further discloses,
wherein the representative luma values associated with the reconstructed video frame are stored in the memory before retrieving the noise pixel data associated with the reconstructed video frame [section 7.1, section 7.4.2.4, section 7.2.4.2, section 7.3.1.4, Fig.7].
In regard to claim 8, Grois discloses the method of claim 7. Grois further discloses, further comprising:
generating luma noise film grain pixels associated with a portion of the reconstructed video frame based on the noise pixel data [section 7.4.1, section 7.4.2.2, section 7.4.2.4].
In regard to claim 9, Grois discloses the method of claim 8. Grois further discloses,
wherein the luma noise film grain pixels associated with the portion of the reconstructed video frame are generated before the chroma film grain noise pixels [section 7.4.1, section 7.4.2.4].
In regard to claim 10, Grois discloses the method of claim 9. Grois further discloses, further comprising:
applying the luma noise film grain pixels to the portion of the reconstructed video frame [section 7.4.1, section 7.4.2.4].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 17-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grois et al. ("Proposed Text: Film Grain Synthesis Technology for Video Applications (Draft 3)", Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE, 20221020 - 20221028, No. JVET-AB0042-v2, m60721, 23 October 2022) in view of the level of skill in the art.
In regard to claim 11, this claim is drawn to an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1, wherein claim 11 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis. Grois does not explicitly disclose implementing the method via a processor coupled to memory. However, the examiner takes official notice it is unquestionably known in the art to implement decoding methods (like that of Grois) using a processor coupled to memory. For example, prior art McCarthy (US 2024/0179330), which also relates to film grain encoding/decoding, explicitly discloses implementing the system via software instructions in a program memory accessible to processors in ¶0163-¶0164.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method disclosed by Grois via a processor coupled with memory as known in the art in order to implement the method using a standard and conventional hardware/software arrangement.
In regard to claim 12, this claim is drawn to an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 2, wherein claim 12 contains the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
In regard to claim 13, this claim is drawn to an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 3, wherein claim 13 contains the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
In regard to claim 14, this claim is drawn to an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 4, wherein claim 14 contains the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
In regard to claim 17, this claim is drawn to an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 7, wherein claim 17 contains the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
In regard to claim 18, this claim is drawn to an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 8, wherein claim 18 contains the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
In regard to claim 19, Grois discloses the apparatus of claim 18. Grois further discloses, wherein:
the luma noise film grain pixels associated with the portion of the reconstructed video frame are generated before the chroma film grain noise pixels; and the at least one processor is configured to apply the luma noise film grain pixels to the portion of the reconstructed video frame [section 7.4.1, section 7.4.2.4].
In regard to claim 21, this claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed perform the method of claim 1, wherein claim 20 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis. Grois does not explicitly disclose implementing the method via a non-transitory medium containing executable instructions, but the examiner takes official notice it is unquestionably known in the art to implement decoding methods (like that of Grois) using instructions stored on a computer-readable medium that are executed by a processor. For example, prior art McCarthy (US 2024/0179330), which also relates to film grain encoding/decoding, explicitly discloses implementing the system via software instructions in a program memory accessible to processors in ¶0163-¶0164.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method disclosed by Grois via a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions as known in the art in order to implement the method using a standard and conventional hardware/software arrangement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waggoner et al. (US 11,765,372) – Discloses a video decoder that supports film grain synthesis to determine film grain emulation frequency coefficients based at least in part on the film grain parameters [Col 3, lines 25-49], wherein a codec predicts chroma film grain coefficients from luma film grain coefficients [Col 11, lines 11-21].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA A VOLENTINE whose telephone number is (571)270-7261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joe Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/REBECCA A VOLENTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483 February 26, 2026