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
Priority is in regard to claims, and if the first through third values recited in the claims, and rejected as indefinite as set forth below, are interpreted per the SEI messages illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, then independent claims 1 and 4 are deemed supported by the provisional application of 4/19/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms first/second/third value of the syntax are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms first/second/third value of the syntax are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Namely, it is unclear if the first/second/third value of the syntax are three values defined in a two bit flag, or are a codeword of a syntax, or are three distinct flags or entries in a table or syntax transmission, such as the SEI tables illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.
For purposes of examination, the recited first/second/third value of the syntax will be interpreted in accordance with Figures 5 and 6 as flags or entries in a table or syntax transmission, such as the SEI tables illustrated. Another interpretation may raise priority issues and Figure objections as non-illustrative of the invention. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, 12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2014/0211858) in view of Neumeier (US 2018/0293269).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform an encoding method, (paragraph 0059, processor coupled to storage with instructions for processor execution) the encoding method comprising: encoding one or more pictures into coded information of the one or more pictures in a video media bitstream, (Abstract, video encoding) the coded information including a signaled value of a syntax element, (shown Figure 3, paragraph 0058, header portion 36 of frame with syntax such as SEI message for encoded samples) the syntax element being associated with a use state of an optimization technique for the encoding, (paragraph 0051, indication in syntax for scaling or warping) the syntax element being structured to have ... a second value of the syntax element indicating a used state of the optimization technique for the encoding the one or more pictures, (paragraph 0051, indication in syntax indicates application of scaling or warping) and a third value of the syntax element indicating a no-use state of the optimization technique for the encoding the one or more pictures; and transmitting the video media bitstream. (paragraph 0051, indication in syntax indicates application of scaling or warping)
That is to say, per the indefiniteness rejection above, the recited features of claim 1 are interpreted as header information, such as a SEI message per Figures 5 and 6 of the description indicating application of an optimization technique for image coding.
Zhao fails to disclose at least three possible values corresponding to three use states of the optimization technique, a first value of the syntax element indicating an unknown state of the optimization technique for the encoding the one or more pictures.
However, in the context of machine image processing, (Abstract) Neumeier teaches at least three possible values corresponding to three use states of the optimization technique, a first value of the syntax element indicating an unknown state of the optimization technique for the encoding the one or more pictures. (paragraphs 0050/0052, unknown data points sent to server for processing such that server receives a set of data points in an unknown state, and is appraised of said unknown state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the instant application that that a set of data may be in an indeterminate state, for example, in regard to application of a processing because one of skill in the art would understand that a processing may or may not be applied to a set of data, and thus the set of data may be in an unknown state as evinced by Neumeier. (para. 0050)
Regarding independent claim 4, claim 4 is a decoder claim reciting analogous decoder features to the encoder features of claim 1 and is therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Zhao and Neumeier for reason similar to claim 1. Still further, paragraph 0051 of Zhao identically discloses the receiving syntax and video data from the bitstream and processing the same as recited for decoding.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Zhao discloses wherein the optimization technique includes at least one of: a region-of-interest (ROI) pre-processing technique; a foreground pre-processing technique; a background pre-processing technique; a temporal sub-sampling technique; a spatial sub-sampling technique; a quantization parameter adaption for ROI technique; and a quantization step changes for temporal layers technique. (paragraph 0051, warping/scaling disclosed is a spatial sub-sampling technique as recited)
Regarding dependent claim 3, Zhao discloses wherein the syntax element is included in at least one of a supplementary enhancement information (SEI) message, a sequence parameter set, a video parameter set, a picture parameter set, an adaptation parameter set, a picture header, a slice header, a group of block (GOB) header, and a group of picture (GOP) header. (shown Figure 3, frame/picture header 36)
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 7, claims 5 and 7 recite features similar to claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are therefore also disclosed by Zhao for reasons similar to claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Zhao discloses wherein the syntax element is parsed from a supplementary enhancement information (SEI) message. (paragraph 0053, SEI messages are a syntax of the H.264/265 standards; see Leizerovich, US 2019/0354774, paragraphs 0103/0113, specifying same in state of art)
Regarding dependent claim 9, Zhao fails to disclose the recited; however, applied to Zhao, Neumeier teaches setting an initial state of the optimization technique to be the unknown state, because from paragraphs 0050-0052, the video segment is unknown and unknown processing has been applied to the video segment from unknown data source(s) which must be determined from a reference database, thus per the teaching of Neumeier the initial state of the processing of a segment of frames/pictures is unknown and must be determined by assessing the picture.
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Zhao discloses determining a first signaled value of a first syntax element and a second signaled value of a second syntax element from the coded information of the one or more pictures, the first syntax element being associated with a first use state of a foreground pre-processing technique on the one or more pictures, the second syntax element being associated with a second use state of a background pre-processing technique on the one or more pictures. (paragraphs 0044/0051, ROI is foreground region, and other region is background region, different processes for sizing/warping applied to different regions, signaled as syntax per region in bitstream)
Regarding dependent claim 12, Zhao fails to disclose the recited; however, applied to Zhao, Neumeier teaches wherein the signaled value of the syntax element indicates the unknown state, (paragraphs 0050/0052, unknown data points sent to server for processing such that server receives a set of data points in an unknown state, and is appraised of said unknown state) the signaled value of the syntax element is inserted by a device that is configured to switch from a first source to a second source for providing the coded video bitstream. (paragraph 0050, multiple programs from sources are received by client for processing and determination of unknown data which are inserted into a bitstream for processing)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Zhao discloses wherein the foreground pre-processing technique adjusts a visual property of a foreground element, and the background pre-processing technique adjusts a visual property of a background element. (paragraph 0044, ROI has an increased proportion of frame; background has a decreased proportion of frame)
Regarding dependent claim 15, Zhao discloses the used state of the optimization technique indicate that the optimization technique is used for encoding the one or more pictures, and the no-use state of the optimization technique indicates that the optimization technique is not used for encoding the one or more pictures. (paragraph 0051 in conjunction with paragraph 0053, when warping is indicated in the bitstream the inverse of warping is effected; when warping is not indicated, frame processed per no warping)
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the unknown state of the optimization technique indicates that whether the optimization technique is used for encoding the one or more pictures is unknown.
However, Neumeier teaches wherein the unknown state of the optimization technique indicates that whether the optimization technique is used for encoding the one or more pictures is unknown. (paragraphs 0050/0052, unknown data points sent to server for processing such that server receives a set of data points in an unknown state, and is appraised of said unknown state)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 16, claim 16 is an apparatus claim reciting device features similar to the recited method features of claim 11, and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination of Zhao and Neumeier for reasons similar to claim 11. It is further noted in regard to independent claim 16 that Zhao identically discloses the recited features of the first signaled value and the second signaled value being signaled individually. (paragraph 0051, values signaled per region, thus individually)
Regarding dependent claim 17, claim 17 is duplicative of the recited first syntax element of claim 16 in regard to the background region. Courts have found duplication of parts to be totemic of obviousness, thus dependent claim 17 is obvious per rejection of independent claim 16 above. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts.
Regarding dependent claims 18 and 19, claims 18 and 19 are apparatus claims reciting device features similar to dependent method claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Zhao and Neumeier for reasons similar to claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Neumeier, in yet further view of Salehifar (US 2021/0099710).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses parsing the coded information to obtain a presence... that indicates whether a group of syntax elements for a group of optimization techniques is present in the coded information; and when the presence ... indicates an existence of the group of syntax elements, parsing the coded information to obtain values of the group of syntax elements. (paragraph 0051, indication of warping or scaling sent in bitstream, when indication received, used to process scaling or warping-syntax may include a warping map)
Zhao may be considered inchoate in regard to the presence in the bitstream being a [presence] flag.
However, Salehifar identically teaches using a presence flag to signal different types of image processing regarding image. (paragraphs 0120-0124, flags signal five different types of image processings)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that syntax elements of a frame header or SEI message include flags because flags were a well-known syntax element to those of skill in the art before the effective filing date as evinced by Salehifar. (paragraphs 0120-0124)
Regarding dependent claim 20, claim 20 is an apparatus claim reciting device features similar to the recited method features of claim 8, and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination of Zhao and Neumeier in view of Salehifar for reasons similar to claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Zhao discloses parsing an update ... from the coded video bitstream, the update... indicating whether an update to one or more optimization techniques is coded into the coded information; when the update... indicates that the update is coded into the coded information, determining a specific optimization technique based on an identification of the specific optimization technique in the coded video bitstream; and determining one or more attributes of the specific optimization technique from the coded video bitstream. (paragraphs 0051-0053, the indication of the processing technique is signaled and parsed in regard to successive frames such that the optimization technique is dynamically changed and is updated on a per frame basis from the bitstream)
Zhao may be considered inchoate in regard to the update in the bitstream being a [update] flag.
However, Salehifar identically teaches using a update flag to signal different types of image processing regarding image over time. (paragraphs 0120-0124, flags signal five different types of image processings which are dynamically signaled, providing for updates over time)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ramachandran (US 2014/0126768) implicates unknown frame elements.
Chiu (US 2019/0123833) provides inventive background.
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
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights