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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 2022/0270267) in view of Nakashima (US 2013/0176488).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses a method for interpolating video frames (see fig. 2B), the method comprising: obtaining at least two key frames of a video (e.g. see 202a and 202b in fig. 2B), for which a motion estimation is to be performed (see 105 in fig. 2A); detecting repetitive pattern regions on the at least one key frame of the at least two key frames (e.g. see ¶ [0037]); estimating motion between the at least one key frame of the at least two key frames and a point in time (see 105 in fig. 2A; see 202a and 202b in fig. 2B), for which an interpolated frame (see 204 in fig. 2B) will be obtained by feeding the at least two key frames and the repetitive pattern regions to a trained motion estimation neural network (e.g. see ¶ [0005]), wherein, when a training of the motion estimation neural network is performed, a value of a loss function is calculated as a sum of: (i) a loss related with a degree of similarity between a reference interpolation frame and the interpolated frame (e.g. see ¶ [0037]), and (ii) a loss related with a degree of self-similarity of motion vectors obtained by motion estimation in the training of the motion estimation neural network (e.g. see ¶ [0073]-[0074]), wherein the motion vectors belong to at least one of the repetitive pattern regions detected on the reference interpolation frame (e.g. see ¶ [0072]-[0073]); obtaining the interpolated frame by performing motion compensation using the at least one key frame and the motion vectors (see 204 in figs 2A-2B).
Although Ye discloses the repetitive pattern regions, it is noted that Ye does not disclose wherein the repetitive pattern regions comprise a visual pattern repeated multiple times.
However, Nakashima discloses a method of interpolation of detecting repetitive pattern regions, wherein the repetitive pattern regions comprise a visual pattern repeated multiple times (see S302 in fig. 3).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Nakashima teachings of detecting repetitive pattern regions into Ye motion compensation for the benefit of reducing erroneous motion vector calculation in repetitive visual pattern of an image.
Regarding claim 2, Ye further discloses wherein, when the training of the motion estimation neural network is performed, the method further comprising applying regularization to the motion vectors (see 222 and 224 in fig. 2B), and wherein the loss related with the degree of self-similarity is calculated before the regularization is applied to the motion vectors or after the regularization is applied to the motion vectors (e.g. see ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Ye further discloses wherein the motion being estimated are motion vectors into or from the at least one key frame (see 222 and 224 in fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 4, the references further disclose wherein: when the motion vectors being estimated are motion vectors into the at least one key frame (see 222 and 224 in fig. 2B), the motion vectors, which belong to the repetitive pattern region, begin in the repetitive pattern region (e.g. see Ye ¶ [0037]; see Nakashima fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 5, Ye further discloses wherein the regularization of motion vectors is performed by applying to the motion vectors in the repetitive pattern region (e.g. see Ye ¶ [0037]; see Nakashima fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 6, the references further disclose wherein the detecting the repetitive pattern regions on the at least one key frame, comprises: obtaining a first map of repetitive pattern features by block-by-block processing of the at least one key frame in a first direction and a second map of repetitive pattern features by block- by-block processing of the at least one key frame in a second direction (see Nakashima fig. 5C), combining the first map of repetitive pattern features and the second map of repetitive pattern features into a combined map of repetitive pattern features (see Nakashima fig. 5C), and determining repetitive pattern regions from the combined map of repetitive pattern features, wherein the repetitive pattern regions are two or more adjacent blocks of the at least one key frame, for which repetitive pattern features are set in the combined map of repetitive pattern features (see Nakashima fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 7, the references further disclose wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the second direction (see Nakashima fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 8, the references further disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction are, respectively, a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (see Nakashima fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 9, the references further disclose wherein the detecting the repetitive pattern regions on the at least one key frame (see Nakashima S301 in fig. 3), comprises: obtaining: a map of horizontally repetitive pattern features by block-by-block processing of the at least one key frame in the horizontal direction (see Nakashima fig. 4C relating to 5A), a map of vertically repetitive pattern features by block-by-block processing of the at least one key frame in the vertical direction (see Nakashima fig. concept of 4C relating to 5B), a map of first diagonally repetitive pattern features by block-by-block processing of the at least one key frame in a first diagonal direction (see Nakashima concept of fig. 4C relating to 5D), and a map of second diagonally repetitive pattern features by block-by-block processing of the at least one key frame in a second diagonal direction (see Nakashima concept of fig. 4C relating to 5D, although not shown, it is obvious that another diagonal directions is the mirrored image of fig. 5D), combining the obtained maps of repetitive pattern features into a combined map of repetitive pattern features (see Nakashima 5C-5D), determining repetitive pattern regions from the combined map of repetitive pattern features to obtain repetitive pattern regions (see Nakashima 4A-4C), wherein the repetitive pattern region of the combined map of repetitive pattern regions are two or more adjacent blocks of the at least one key frame, for which repetitive pattern features are set in the combined map of repetitive pattern features (see Nakashima fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 10, the references further discloses wherein the first diagonal direction is the direction from the lower right corner of the at least one key frame to the upper left corner of the at least one key frame, and the second diagonal direction is the direction from the upper right corner of the at least one key frame to the lower left corner of the at least one key frame (see concept of fig. Nakashima 4C relating to 5D, although not shown, it is obvious that another diagonal directions is the mirrored image of fig. 5D).
Regarding claim 19, Ye further discloses a video frame interpolation device comprising: memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (see 100 in fig. 1), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the video frame interpolation device to perform the method of claim 1 (e.g. see ¶ [0148]).
Regarding claim 20, Ye further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause a video frame interpolation device to perform the method of claim 1 (e.g. see ¶ [0148]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11-18 is/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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Zhang et al. (US 2016/0127678), discloses interpolating frame between frames.
2. Socek et al. (US 2019/0045193), discloses region based interpolation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights