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 .
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, 6, 9-11, 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,413,789 B2 in view of Radosavljevic et al., (“AHG9: Film grain estimation and film grain synthesis for VVC Film grain characteristics SEI message, film grain estimation and film grain synthesis modules”; as supplied on the IDS filed 08/11/2025).
As per claim 1, Radosavljevic teaches a method comprising estimating film grain parameters for a plurality of image blocks in an image with film grain, the film grain parameters comprising at least one scaling factor, where the estimating further comprising: obtaining a plurality of film grain blocks, film grain being representative of film grain estimate in a respective image block belonging to the selected subset of image blocks (claim 1, “obtaining a plurality of film grain blocks, a film grain block being representative of a film grain estimate in an image block”); obtaining a plurality of filtered blocks, a filtered block being representative of the respective image block without film grain, the respective image block belonging to the selected subset of image blocks (claim 1, “obtaining a plurality of filtered blocks, a filtered block being representative of an image block without film grain”); deriving a scaling function by fitting a curve on a set of data points, wherein sets of data points comprises, for the selected subset of image blocks, a first feature data based on a variance of film grain block and a second feature data based on an average value of the filtered block (claim 1, “deriving a scaling function by fitting a curve on a variance of the film grain block as a function of an average value of the filtered block for the plurality of image blocks”); and deriving a piece wise constant function approximating the scaling function using a quantizer (claim 1, “and deriving a piece wise constant function approximating the scaling function using a quantizer”), wherein the at least one scaling factor is based on quantization levels of the quantizer (claim 1, “wherein the at least one scaling factor are based on quantization levels of the quantizer”), and wherein the scaling factor for each intensity interval of the plurality of intensity intervals is representative of a piece of the piece wise constant function approximating the scaling (claim 1, “wherein a plurality of intensity intervals is based on a plurality of quantization partitions of the quantizer, and wherein a scaling factor for each intensity interval of the plurality of intensity intervals is representative of a piece of the piece wise constant function approximating the scaling function”). Radosavljevic does not explicitly disclose obtaining mask information for the image, the mask information comprising, for each block of the plurality of blocks, an indication of whether an image block is flat or not; selecting a subset of the plurality of image blocks based on the indication that the image blocks are flat.
However, Radosavljevic’2 teaches obtaining mask information for the image, the mask information comprising, for each block of he plurality of image blocks, an indication of whether an image block is flat or not (1 Introduction, “Moreover, it has been demonstrated that film grain can be used as tool to mask compression artifacts”; 2.2 Film Grain Analysis Workflow, “In addition, film grain analysis consists of creating a map that indicates the flat regions of the input frame” and fig. 2); and selecting a subset of the plurality of image blocks based on the indication that the image blocks are flat (2.2 Film Grain Analysis Workflow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Radosavljevic’2 with Radosavljevic for the benefit of providing improved image quality.
Regarding claim 6, Radosavljevic (modified by Radosavljevic’2) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Radosavljevic teaches wherein the quantizer is a non-uniform Lloyd Max quantizer (claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, Radosavljevic (modified by Radosavljevic’2) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Radosavljevic does not explicitly disclose further comprising inserting estimated film grain parameters into a film grain characteristics (FGC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message.
However, Radosavljevic teaches inserting estimated film grain parameters into a film grain characteristics (FGC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (abstract, 2. Illustration of FGC SEI message based on SMPTE RDD 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Radosavljevic’2 with Radosavljevic for the benefit of providing improved image quality.
Regarding clam 10, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium soring instructions with the limitation of claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
Regarding claim 11, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Radosavljevic discloses a memory (claim 12); one or more processors configured to estimate film grain parameters for a plurality of image blocks in an image with film grain (claim 12). In addition, the Examiner notes that Radosavljevic discloses the corresponding apparatus (claim 12) with the limitations as the method as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 6, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 6 also applies. In addition, the Examiner notes that Radosavljevic discloses the corresponding apparatus (claim 13) with the limitations as the method as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 9, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 9 also applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 12-15, and 17-18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wedi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103467 A1), “Encoding and Decoding of Video Images Based On A Non-Linear Quantization”
Zheludkov et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0194615 A1), “Video Sequence Encoding System And Algorithms”
Oh et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0152296 A1), “Methods And Systems For Processing Film Grain Noise”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights