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 .
Priority
The claims as originally filed have been reviewed and cannot fairly claim the priority of the first provisional application filed 7/13/2024 because said claims recite interpolation features not fairly disclosed to one of skill in the art in said application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because said abstract is in claim, not narrative form as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Damghanian (US 2024/0397067).
Regarding claim 1, Damghanian discloses a method for decoding a coded video bitstream, (paragraph 0016, decoding a coded bitstream) the method comprising: obtaining, by a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, (paragraph 0102/0142, decoding program run by processor) a coded video bitstream; (paragraph 0016, receiving a coded bitstream) determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a sequence-level temporal restoration flag for a picture sequence; (paragraph 0059, reconstruction rules sent to decoder) when the sequence-level temporal restoration flag indicates that temporal restoration is enabled, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal restoration mode for the picture sequence; (paragraph 0058, restoration rules include restoration mode) when the temporal restoration mode indicates an interpolation mode, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, an interpolation ratio index indicating a temporal resampling ratio; (paragraph 0060, interpolation rule includes interpolation ratio among pictures, two pictures A and C for one B) when the temporal restoration mode indicates an extrapolation mode, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, an extrapolation ratio index indicating a temporal resampling ratio; (paragraph 0061, extrapolation rules including x/y delta extrapolation ratio) and decoding, by the device, the coded video bitstream by generating temporal resampling data based on the temporal resampling ratio. (paragraphs 0060/0061, recited decoding effected)
Regarding claim 2, Damghanian discloses wherein, the temporal restoration mode is a sequence-level temporal restoration mode; the interpolation ratio index is a sequence-level interpolation ratio index; the extrapolation ratio index is a sequence-level extrapolation ratio index; and the temporal resampling ratio is a sequence-level temporal resampling ratio. (Abstract, paragraph 0059, rules are for a sequence of pictures)
Regarding claim 4, Damghanian discloses when the temporal restoration mode indicates the extrapolation mode: determining, by the device, an extrapolation key frame number to be a predefined integer; (paragraph 0054, key frames identified on integer basis) and extrapolating, by the device, a current frame based on at least two already constructed frames or based on at least two frames that are constructed not by either interpolation or extrapolation. (paragraph 0063, reconstruction based on frames of full pictures A and D)
Regarding claim 6, Damghanian discloses when the sequence-level temporal restoration flag indicates that temporal restoration is enabled, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling changed flag; and when the temporal resampling changed flag indicates that temporal restoration is changed, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, the temporal restoration mode. (paragraphs 0058/0059, rules specify interpolation and extrapolation, and when to apply the same to a picture for restoration)
Regarding claim 7, Damghanian discloses the temporal resampling changed flag is a picture-level temporal resampling changed flag; the temporal restoration mode is a picture-level temporal restoration mode; the interpolation ratio index is a picture-level interpolation ratio index; the extrapolation ratio index is a picture-level extrapolation ratio index; and the temporal resampling ratio is a picture-level temporal resampling ratio. (paragraphs 0055/0056/0064, skips ratio is signaled)
Regarding claim 8, Damghanian discloses when the temporal restoration mode indicates the extrapolation mode, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, an extrapolation key frame number indicator. (paragraphs 0054/0061, extrapolation key frame indicates picture A as key picture/frame)
Regarding claim 16, Damghanian discloses determining, by the device, a temporal resampling algorithm as one of the following: a learned based algorithm, or a conventional algorithm; or determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling algorithm syntax, wherein the temporal resampling algorithm syntax indicates a temporal resampling process among a list of predefined processes. (non-limiting because all options covered; paragraph 0058, rule based reconstruction algorithm)
Regarding claim 17, Damghanian discloses determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, an offset syntax indicating a frame that is offset from a current frame and on which the current frame is based, wherein the offset syntax represents one of the following: a signed offset value, or a sign flag value and an absolute offset value. (paragraph 0061, x/y position offset in image frame)
Regarding independent claim 18, Damghanian discloses a method for encoding a video, (paragraph 0013, video encoding) the method comprising: obtaining, by a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, a video; (Figure 2, and paragraph 0102/0142, encoding program run by processor, video received at VTF 201) determining, by the device based on the video, a sequence-level temporal restoration flag for a picture sequence, and encoding the sequence-level temporal restoration flag into a coded video bitstream; (paragraph 0059, restoration rules encoded intro bitstream) when the sequence-level temporal restoration flag indicates that temporal sampling is enabled, determining, by the device based on the video, whether an interpolation mode or an extrapolation mode is used for the temporal sampling, and encoding a temporal restoration mode into the coded video bitstream; (paragraph 0058, interpolation/extrapolation rules determined and encoded into bitstream per above feature) when the temporal restoration mode indicates the interpolation mode, determining, by the device based on the video, an interpolation ratio index indicating a temporal resampling ratio, and encoding the interpolation ratio index into the coded video bitstream; (paragraphs 0049/0060/0064, interpolation rules indicate sampling ratio, and are transmitted in bitstream) when the temporal restoration mode indicates the extrapolation mode, determining, by the device based on the video, an extrapolation ratio index indicating a temporal resampling ratio, and encoding the extrapolation ratio index into the coded video bitstream; (paragraphs 0049/0061/0064, extrapolation rules indicate sampling ratio, and are transmitted in bitstream) and encoding, by the device, the video into the coded video bitstream by downsampling based on the temporal resampling ratio. (paragraph 0028, transmitting a thinned set of pictures of a video stream in a transmission bitstream)
Regarding independent claim 20, claim 20 reduces to a product by process claim with the features of the preamble: Damghanian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method. (paragraphs 0133/0143, computer readable medium storing bitstream from encoding)
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) 3, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damghanian.
Regarding claim 3, Damghanian fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Damghanian renders obvious the temporal resampling ratio is indicated by being equal to one of the following: 2^(M + 1) or (2^M + 1), wherein M is an unsigned integer value of the interpolation ratio index or the extrapolation ratio index, (paragraph 0079, shown Figure 7) because paragraph 0079 makes clear the order is a power of 2, and either Tld 2 or TLd 3 is up reconstructed as a power of 2, and either the first position I or the last position B in Figure 7 can be considered the increment of + 1 as recited.
Regarding claim 5, Damghanian discloses when the temporal restoration mode indicates the extrapolation mode, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, an extrapolation key frame number indicator. (paragraphs 0054/0061, extrapolation key frame indicates picture A as key picture/frame)
Damghanian fails to identically disclose wherein a sequence-level extrapolation key frame number is indicated by being equal to N+2, and N is an unsigned integer value of the extrapolation key frame number indicator.
But Damghanian discloses extrapolation based on A and D pictures (paragraph 0063), which are two positions apart, and further discloses the picture order count (POC) is on the order of N+2, (paragraph 0079) thereby teaching that a sequence-level extrapolation key frame number is indicated by being equal to N+2, and N is an unsigned integer value of the extrapolation key frame number indicator because A and D pictures used for extrapolation are N+2 positions apart as recited.
Regarding dependent claim 9, claim 9 is a further method claim reciting features similar to claim 5 above, and is therefore also rendered obvious by Damghanian for reasons similar to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damghanian in view of Chung (US 2015/0350654).
Regarding claim 10, Damghanian discloses syntax in a bitstream which is a flag, (paragraph 0059) and filtering, (paragraphs 0044/0045) but is inchoate in regard to a temporal resampling post- filter.
However, Chung discloses a temporal resampling post-filter in the context of frame rate conversions, (paragraphs 0021/0048) thereby when applied to the syntax of Damghanian teaching determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post- filter hint flag indicating whether a temporal resampling post filter is enabled; when the temporal resampling post-filter hint flag indicates that the temporal resampling post filter is enabled, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter valid flag; and when the temporal resampling post-filter valid flag indicates that the temporal resampling post filter is applied, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter syntax indicating a reference frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply post reconstruction filtering to reconstructed temporal picture/frame sequences because such was well known and commonly used in the art of video reconstruction by those of skill in the art well before the effective filing date of the instant application as evinced by Chung. (paragraphs 0021/0048)
Regarding claim 11, Damghanian may be considered inchoate in regard to the recited; however, Chung teaches applying, by the device, post filtering to the reference frame in the picture sequence according to the temporal resampling post-filter syntax. (paragraphs 0021/0048, post reconstruction filtering applied to reconstructed video)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Damghanian teaches the temporal resampling post-filter syntax comprises at least one of the following: a temporal resampling post-filter current frame value, a temporal resampling post-filter current frame index. (paragraph 0059, reconstruction rules defined include frame values-see paragraph 0064)
Regarding claim 13, Damghanian discloses syntax in a bitstream which is a flag, (paragraph 0059) and filtering, (paragraphs 0044/0045) but is inchoate in regard to a temporal resampling post-filter.
However, Chung discloses a temporal resampling post-filter in the context of frame rate conversions, (paragraphs 0021/0048) thereby when applied to the syntax of Damghanian teaching determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post- filter hint flag indicating whether a temporal resampling post filter is enabled; and when the temporal resampling post-filter hint flag indicates that the temporal resampling post filter is enabled, for each frame in temporal resampled frames :determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter valid flag, and when the temporal resampling post-filter valid flag indicates that the temporal resampling post filter is applied, determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter syntax for a reference frame.
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 14, Damghanian discloses syntax in a bitstream which is a flag, (paragraph 0059) and filtering, (paragraphs 0044/0045) but is inchoate in regard to a temporal resampling post- filter.
However, Chung discloses a temporal resampling post-filter in the context of frame rate conversions, (paragraphs 0021/0048) thereby when applied to the syntax of Damghanian teaching determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post- filter hint flag indicating whether a temporal resampling post filter is enabled; and when the temporal resampling post-filter hint flag indicates that the temporal resampling post filter is enabled: determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter valid flag; and deriving, by the device, a reference frame according to a pre-defined configuration.
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 15, Damghanian discloses syntax in a bitstream which is a flag, (paragraph 0059) and filtering, (paragraphs 0044/0045) but is inchoate in regard to a temporal resampling post- filter.
However, Chung discloses a temporal resampling post-filter in the context of frame rate conversions, (paragraphs 0021/0048) thereby when applied to the syntax of Damghanian teaching determining, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter hint flag indicating whether a temporal resampling post filter is enabled; and when the temporal resampling post-filter hint flag indicates that the temporal resampling post filter is enabled, deriving, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a temporal resampling post-filter valid flag or a reference frame according to a pre-defined configuration.
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 10 above.
Regarding dependent claim 19, claim 19 is a further method claim reciting features similar to claims 13-15 above, and is therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Damghanian and Chung for reasons similar to claims 13-15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dane (US 2009/0268823) implicates picture reconstruction as recited.
Wang (US 2024/0223764) provides implementation details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights