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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0227243 A1, referred to herein as “Wu”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0300341 A1, referred to herein as “Wu II”).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses: A video decoding method, wherein the method is performed by a decoder side (Wu: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0186]-[0194], disclosing a destination device and associated decoder for performing a decoding method), and the method comprises:
obtaining a bitstream and rendering information corresponding to the bitstream (Wu: Fig. 1, paragraph [0187]-[0188] and Fig. 3, paragraph [0244], disclosing that the destination device may receive a bitstream of encoded picture data), wherein the bitstream comprises a plurality of image frames (Wu: paragraph [0319], disclosing that the picture data includes a plurality of video frames);
performing, by using a first type of filter determined based on the rendering information (Wu: paragraphs [0275] and [0280], disclosing use of a first interpolation filter), interpolation on a first decoded image corresponding to a first image frame (Wu: Fig. 9, paragraphs [0224], [0246], [0275] and [0347], disclosing interpolation of a decoded image using the interpolation filter), to obtain a… reference frame of a second image frame (Wu: paragraph [0333], disclosing that a reference frame may be determined using the first type interpolation filter), wherein the first type of filter is one of a plurality of specified types of filters (Wu: paragraph [0224], disclosing that a plurality of interpolation filter types is identified and used for selecting the first filter); and
decoding the second image frame based on the… reference frame, to obtain a second decoded image corresponding to the second image frame (Wu: Fig. 9, paragraphs [0344]-[0354], disclosing decoding using a prediction process involving interpolation based on the target interpolation filter; paragraph [0333], disclosing use of the reference frame and first type interpolation filter in the prediction process; paragraphs [0167] and [0231], disclosing coding of multiple frames including reference pictures).
Wu does not explicitly disclose:
a virtual reference frame and
decoding the second image frame based on the virtual reference frame.
However, Wu II discloses:
a virtual reference frame (Wu II: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0037]-[0038], disclosing that a virtual reference frame may be generated via interpolation) and
decoding the second image frame based on the virtual reference frame (Wu II: Fig. 18, paragraphs [0128]-[0138], disclosing decoding of images based on virtual reference frames).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the virtual reference frames of Wu II in the video decoding method of Wu.
One would have been motivated to modify Wu in this manner in order to improve coding efficiencies by deriving reference frames from already-coded reference frames (Wu II: paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu and Wu II disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the rendering information comprises one or a combination of a depth map, an albedo map, and a post-processing parameter (Wu: paragraph [0225], disclosing use of a filter parameter in the coding process).
Regarding claim 10, Wu and Wu II disclose: A video encoding method performed by an encoder (Wu: Fig. 1, paragraph [0177], disclosing a source device with associated encoder), the method comprises:
obtaining a plurality of source images and rendering information corresponding to the plurality of source images (Wu: paragraphs [0182]-[0184], disclosing that an encoder receives picture data to be encoded; Fig. 2, paragraphs [0204] and [0225], disclosing obtaining of filter parameters; paragraph [0319], disclosing that the picture data includes a plurality of video frames);
performing interpolation on a first decoded image by using a first type of filter determined based on the rendering information (Wu: paragraphs [0275] and [0280], disclosing use of a first interpolation filter based on filter parameters; Fig. 9, paragraphs [0224], [0246], [0275] and [0347], disclosing interpolation of a decoded image using the interpolation filter), to obtain a virtual reference frame of a second image (Wu: paragraph [0333], disclosing that a reference frame may be determined using the first type interpolation filter; Wu II: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0037]-[0038], disclosing that a virtual reference frame may be generated via interpolation), wherein the first type of filter is one of a plurality of specified types of filters (Wu: paragraph [0224], disclosing that a plurality of interpolation filter types is identified and used for selecting the first filter), and the first decoded image is a reconstructed image of a first image in the plurality of images (Wu: paragraphs [0217]-[0219] disclosing use of the decoded image as a reconstructed image during the encoding process); and
encoding the second image based on the virtual reference frame, to obtain a bitstream corresponding to the second image (Wu: Fig. 1, paragraph [0185] and Fig. 3, paragraph [0244], disclosing that the encoding device may provide a bitstream of encoded picture data; Wu II: Fig. 17, paragraphs [0120]-[0123], disclosing encoding of images based on virtual reference frames).
The motivation for combining Wu and Wu II has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 14, Wu and Wu II disclose: The method according to claim 10, wherein the rendering information comprises one or a combination of a depth map, an albedo map, and a post-processing parameter (Wu: paragraph [0225], disclosing use of a filter parameter in the coding process).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Wu discloses decoder implementation in Fig. 3.)
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Wu discloses decoder implementation in Fig. 2.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 15-18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights