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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,413,730 (‘730 patent) in view of Togita. Although the claims are not identical, both claims recite the same essential elements of an image processing device having first and second video capture modes with a differing imaging condition between them, with quantization parameter range being dependent upon the video capturing mode, such that the second video capturing mode has a quantization parameter (QP) upper limit that is lower than the QP upper limit of the first video capturing mode.
The instant claims include the further limitation that a frame rate is held the same between the two video capturing modes. This additional feature is made obvious by Togita, which discloses in an analogous art directed to an image capturing device having different quality settings that setting different quantization parameter ranges for different image quality capturing modes, as shown in figure 5b. For instance, a quantization parameter range upper bound of a higher quality image capture setting is lower than the quantization parameter range upper bound of a lower quality image capture setting (i.e. a “first video capturing mode”). See figure 5b [0068]-[0069].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature disclosed in Togita of setting a lower quantization parameter range upper bound for a higher quality image capture setting, as disclosed in Togita, into the invention of the ‘740 patent claims, in order to maintain higher subjective image quality for higher quality capture settings. See Togita [0005]-[0007].
19/287,296, Claim 1
US 12,413,730, Claim 1
An image processing device comprising
a processor configured to:
acquire a video captured based on a first video capturing mode or a second video capturing mode with an imaging condition that is different from an imaging condition of the first video capturing mode; and
An image processing device comprising
a processor configured to:
acquire a video captured based on a first video capturing mode or a second video capturing mode with an imaging condition that is different from an imaging condition of the first video capturing mode;
perform an image processing for compressing image data of a frame of the video with a quantization parameter,
determine a quantization parameter of image data of a frame of the video; and
compress the image data with the quantization parameter,
wherein, at the same frame rate, an upper limit of a second quantization parameter that is
the quantization parameter of the second video capturing mode and is used in the image processing is smaller than an upper limit of a first quantization parameter that is the quantization parameter of the first video capturing mode
determine the quantization parameter within a first range in a case of the first video capturing mode and determine the quantization parameter within a second range in a case of the second video capturing mode, and
a second upper limit value of the second range is smaller than a first upper limit value of the first range, wherein
the imaging condition includes at least one of a shutter speed, a speed of autofocus, a tracking speed of automatic exposure, a tracking speed of white balance and a frame rate, and
at least one of the shutter speed, the speed of autofocus, the tracking speed of automatic exposure, the tracking speed of white balance and the frame rate of the second video capturing mode is set faster than that of the first video capturing mode.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, and corresponding claims are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 2, 3, 1, and 4 the ‘730 patent in view of Togita.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘730 patent, in view of Togita.
The limitations of claim 6 and 13 are disclosed in Togitam where it discloses capturing either still images or video in a RAW image format (i.e.), having no inter-frame dependency and thus suitable for still image extraction. See [0001], [0040].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5 and 12 recite, as an option, that “a frame rate is set faster than that of the first video capturing mode”, but the claims 1 and 8, upon claims 5 and 12 respectively depend, recite that the first and second video capturing modes have a same frame rate. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2015/0181208 A1, in view of Togita, US 2019/0110051 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses: an image processing device comprising
a processor configured to:
acquire a video captured based on a first video capturing mode or a second video capturing
mode with an imaging condition that is different from an imaging condition of the first video capturing mode (See figure 14 flowchart. Note that Park discloses, in for instance [0037], holding a coding parameter, such as frame rate, constant, between different encoding modes, while adjusting other encoding/recording parameters.); and
perform an image processing for compressing image data of a frame of the video with a
quantization parameter (See step 192 in figure 14, noting as disclosed in [0092] that quantization is part of the encoding process.),
Park does not disclose:
wherein, at the same frame rate, an upper limit of a second quantization parameter that is the quantization parameter of the second video capturing mode and is used in the image processing is smaller than an upper limit of a first quantization parameter that is the quantization parameter of
the first video capturing mode.
Park discloses holding a frame rate constant between encoding modes, as disclosed in [0037], but does not disclose setting a quantization parameter range upper limit lower for a first video capturing mode than for a second video capturing mode.
However, Togita discloses in an analogous art directed to an image capturing device having different quality settings that setting different quantization parameter ranges for different image quality capturing modes, as shown in figure 5b. For instance, a quantization parameter range upper bound of a higher quality image capture setting is lower than the quantization parameter range upper bound of a lower quality image capture setting (i.e. a “first video capturing mode”). See figure 5b [0068]-[0069].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature disclosed in Togita of setting a lower quantization parameter range upper bound for a higher quality image capture setting, as disclosed in Togita, into the video capture device of Park, and to incorporate these ranges into the video coding device/method for thermal/power management of Park, in order to maintain higher subjective image quality for higher quality capture settings. See Togita [0005]-[0007].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. This combination, specifically Park, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the same frame rate is a predetermined set value of the frame rate (See [0034]-[0035], disclosing setting a frame rate at a fixed level.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends. This combination, specifically Park, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 2, the upper limit value of the second quantization parameter varies in response to the set value (Park discloses in [0034], “the quality of encoded video may be determined based on a frame rate of the encoded data, with a relatively higher temporal frame rate resulting in a relatively higher quality of encoded video data”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. This combination, specifically Park, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein, in the second video capturing mode, at least one of a shutter speed, a speed of autofocus, a tracking speed of automatic exposure, a tracking speed of white balance, or a frame rate is set faster than that of the first video capturing mode (See [0039], which discloses fixing one or more encoding parameters while adjusting one or more other encoding parameters. For instance, fixing resolution while adjusting QP, or vice versa.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends. This combination, specifically Togita, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the second video capturing mode is a video capturing mode for capturing a video under an imaging condition suitable for extracting a static image (Togita discloses capturing either still images or video in a RAW image format (i.e.), having no inter-frame dependency and thus suitable for still image extraction. See [0001], [0040].).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses: an image processing device comprising
a processor configured to:
acquire a video captured based on a first video capturing mode or a second video capturing
mode with an imaging condition that is different from an imaging condition of the first video capturing mode (See figure 14 flowchart. Note that Park discloses, in for instance [0037], holding a coding parameter, such as frame rate, constant, between different encoding modes, while adjusting other encoding/recording parameters.); and
perform an image processing for compressing image data of a frame of the video with a
quantization parameter (See step 192 in figure 14, noting as disclosed in [0092] that quantization is part of the encoding process.),
Park does not disclose:
wherein, at the same frame rate, a lower limit of a second quantization parameter that is the quantization parameter of the second video capturing mode and is used in the image processing is larger than a lower limit of a first quantization parameter that is the quantization parameter of
the first video capturing mode.
Park discloses holding a frame rate constant between encoding modes, as disclosed in [0037], but does not disclose setting a quantization parameter range upper limit lower for a first video capturing mode than for a second video capturing mode.
However, Togita discloses in an analogous art directed to an image capturing device having different quality settings that set different quantization parameter ranges for different image quality capturing modes, as shown in figure 5b. For instance, a quantization parameter range lower bound of a lower quality image capture setting is higher than the quantization parameter range lowr bound of a higher quality image capture setting (i.e. a “first video capturing mode”). See figure 5b [0068]-[0069].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature disclosed in Togita of setting a lower quantization parameter range upper bound for a higher quality image capture setting, as disclosed in Togita, into the video capture device of Park, and to incorporate these ranges into the video coding device/method for thermal/power management of Park, in order to maintain higher subjective image quality for higher quality capture settings. See Togita [0005]-[0007].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 8, upon which claim 9 depends. This combination, specifically Park, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 9, wherein the same frame rate is a predetermined set value of the frame rate (See [0034]-[0035], disclosing setting a frame rate at a fixed level.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends. This combination, specifically Park, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 9, the upper limit value of the second quantization parameter varies in response to the set value (Park discloses in [0034], “the quality of encoded video may be determined based on a frame rate of the encoded data, with a relatively higher temporal frame rate resulting in a relatively higher quality of encoded video data”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 8, upon which claim 12 depends. This combination, specifically Park, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 8, wherein, in the second video capturing mode, at least one of a shutter speed, a speed of autofocus, a tracking speed of automatic exposure, a tracking speed of white balance, or a frame rate is set faster than that of the first video capturing mode (See [0039], which discloses fixing one or more encoding parameters while adjusting one or more other encoding parameters. For instance, fixing resolution while adjusting QP, or vice versa.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 8, upon which claim 13 depends. This combination, specifically Togita, further discloses: the image processing device according to claim 8, wherein the second video capturing mode is a video capturing mode for capturing a video under an imaging condition suitable for extracting a static image (Togita discloses capturing either still images or video in a RAW image format (i.e.), having no inter-frame dependency and thus suitable for still image extraction. See [0001], [0040].).
Non-transitory computer readable medium claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable for storing an image processing program causing a computer to perform steps that correspond to the steps performed by the processor of image processing device claim 1. Therefore, these claims correspond to one another and claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Togita, in further view of Zuo, US 8,442,337 B2.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. This combination does not disclose: the image processing device according to claim 1, the upper limit of the second quantization parameter varies in response to an input from an instruction input section that receives an external instruction.
However, in an analogous prior art directed to encoding adjustments for animation video, Zuo discloses switching the quantization rules for a video stream according to whether the stream contains animated content or not. See col. 10, lines 9-24. Examples of the kinds of quantization rule changes made in Zuo are discussed at least in col. 6, lines 23-32. In this context, Zuo further discloses with respect to figure 4A’s flowchart that a user may designate, via an interface, a portion of video content as animation content, which in turn causes the encoder to select differential quantization rules specific to animation content. See col. 11, lines 51-50 for disclosure in connection with figure 4a.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate into the video capturing device with different quantization rules for stereo and mono video, the feature disclosed in Zuo of an external input instruction that designates video as being of a certain type, as disclosed in Zuo, in order to facilitate identification of video type, and supplement the automatic identification disclosed in Maruyama. Incorporating this feature would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Maruyama, namely a dual-mode video capture system with separate quantization rules for mono and stereo video, and in Zuo, namely a video content type designation interface, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Togita, in further view of Lee, US 2008/0025392 A1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. This combination does not disclose: the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor makes the upper limit of the second quantization parameter different in response to a scene of the video.
However, setting a QP range according to a scene change detection is disclosed in an analogous art by Lee, which discloses in [0047] with respect to figure 3. Figure 3 discloses detecting a scene change, in step 332, and subsequently discloses in [0048]-[0051], with respect to steps 356-358, adjusting a QP according to whether a scene change was detected or not, (338 vs. 357 and 358), and further according to an amount of available bits (357 vs. 358).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate scene change detection and QP modification based thereon into the video processing device disclosed in Maruyama, because it was known in the art of video coding that scene changes have a large impact on encoding rate control, due to the lack of inter-frame correlation at a scene change. In order to prevent quality deterioration, it would have been obvious to determine a QP allocation based on a scene change detection. See Lee [0010]-[0012].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park in view of Togita discloses the limitations of claim 8, upon which claim 14 depends. This combination does not disclose: the image processing device according to claim 8, wherein the processor makes the lower limit of the second quantization parameter different in response to a scene of the video.
However, setting a QP range according to a scene change detection is disclosed in an analogous art by Lee, which discloses in [0047] with respect to figure 3. Figure 3 discloses detecting a scene change, in step 332, and subsequently discloses in [0048]-[0051], with respect to steps 356-358, adjusting a QP according to whether a scene change was detected or not, (338 vs. 357 and 358), and further according to an amount of available bits (357 vs. 358).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate scene change detection and QP modification based thereon into the video processing device disclosed in Maruyama, because it was known in the art of video coding that scene changes have a large impact on encoding rate control, due to the lack of inter-frame correlation at a scene change. In order to prevent quality deterioration, it would have been obvious to determine a QP allocation based on a scene change detection. See Lee [0010]-[0012].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights