DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/323,957 filed on September 9, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0360814) in view of Lertrattanapanich et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0060041).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an apparatus for interpolating image data (See Wu [0074]), the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and (See Wu [0023]) configured to: process a first image frame and a second image frame using a motion estimator to generate first motion vectors (See Wu [0059]), wherein the motion estimator comprises a machine-learning model trained to generate motion vectors based on image frames (See Wu [0075] and [0096] “The process could also use machine learning based schemes to generate the derived motion vector.”); project the first motion vectors to generate second motion vectors (Se Wu [0010] and [0029]).
It is noted that Wu is silent about generating a third image frame based on the first image frame, the second image frame, and the second motion vectors.
However, Lertrattanapanich teaches interpolating image data including generating a third image frame based on the first image frame, the second image frame, and the second motion vectors (See Lertrattanapanich [0008] and [0030]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wu’s interpolation to incorporate Lertrattanapanich teachings to generate a third image frame based on the first image frame, the second image frame, and the second motion vectors. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wu is to provide improved video quality and reduced visible artifacts in digital video data.
As per claim 2, the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich further teaches wherein the first motion vectors are generated based on a time step between a first time associated with the first image frame and a second time associated with the second image frame (See Lertrattanapanich [0007]-[0008]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate a fourth image frame based on the first image frame, the second image frame, and the first motion vectors (See Lertrattanapanich [0007]). The Applicant should note that Lertrattanapanich is not limiting the number of frames generates since the reference clearly notes that “The system further comprises a processor configured to identify a plurality of motion vectors indicative of differences between first and second frames of a digital video signal”.
Note: A fourth frame is considered as being part of the plurality of first and second frames.
As per claim 6, the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich further teaches wherein the first motion vectors are projected based on a frame-interpolation ratio based on an input frame rate and an output frame rate (See Lertrattanapanich [0006]-[0007], and [0031]).
4. Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0360814) in view of Lertrattanapanich et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0060041) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in vide of Wang et al. (US Patent no. 6625333).
Regarding claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 6.
It is noted that the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich is silent about projecting the first motion vectors, the at least one processor is configured to linearly scale the first motion vectors based on the frame-interpolation ratio to generate scaled motion vectors.
However, Wang teaches projecting the first motion vectors, the at least one processor is configured to linearly scale the first motion vectors based on the frame-interpolation ratio to generate scaled motion vectors (See Wang col. 3, lines 16-52, col. 4, lines 47-67, col. 5, lines 1-2 and col. 6, lines 24-35).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich to incorporate Wang’s teachings to project the first motion vectors, the at least one processor is configured to linearly scale the first motion vectors based on the frame-interpolation ratio to generate scaled motion vectors. The motivation for performing such a modification in the above combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich is to provide a method for temporal interpolation avoiding visible artifacts.
As per claim 8, the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich and Wang further teaches wherein, to project the first motion vectors, the at least one processor is configured to update associations between the scaled motion vectors and pixel positions (See Wu [0010], [0029], [0033] and [0061]).
As per claim 9, the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich and Wang further teaches wherein, to project the first motion vectors, the at least one processor is configured to resolve gaps in the associations between the scaled motion vectors and the pixel positions (See Wu [0075] and [0014]).
As per claim 10, the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich and Wang further teaches wherein, to resolve gaps in the associations between the scaled motion vectors and the pixel positions, the at least one processor is configured to fill the gaps with prior first motion vectors (See Wu [0071]).
As per claim 11, the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich and Wang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to resolve conflicts in the associations between the scaled motion vectors and the pixel positions (See Wu [0061]).
5. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0360814) in view of Lertrattanapanich et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0060041) and Wang et al. (US Patent no. 6625333) as applied to claims 8 above, and further in vide of Luo et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2025/0106355)
As per claims 12 and 13, the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich, and Wang is silent about wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate a confidence mask based on the first motion vectors, wherein the conflicts are resolved based on the confidence mask, and wherein the conflicts are resolved by selecting a scaled motion vector associated with a higher confidence value in the confidence mask over a scaled motion vector associated with a lower confidence value in the confidence mask.
However, Luo teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate a confidence mask based on the first motion vectors, wherein the conflicts are resolved based on the confidence mask (See Luo [0126], [0164] and [0171]), and wherein the conflicts are resolved by selecting a scaled motion vector associated with a higher confidence value in the confidence mask over a scaled motion vector associated with a lower confidence value in the confidence mask (See Luo [0164] where “a quality mask can provide an indication that current frame motion vectors 406 are reliable, or unreliable, or have other such qualities, [0166], [0169]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Luo wherein at least one processor is configured to generate a confidence mask based on the first motion vectors, wherein the conflicts are resolved based on the confidence mask, and wherein the conflicts are resolved by selecting a scaled motion vector associated with a higher confidence value in the confidence mask over a scaled motion vector associated with a lower confidence value in the confidence mask. The motivation for performing such a modification in the above combination is to properly remove redundancy when the picture is being reconstructed.
As per claim 14, the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich, Wang and Luo further teaches wherein, at least one processor is configured to: determine first-to-second motion vectors based on the first image frame and the second image frame; determine second-to-first motion vectors based on the second image frame and the first image frame; and compare the first-to-second motion vectors to the second-to-first motion vectors (See Wu [0010], [0029]). Note that the confidence mask is taught in Luo [0164] as previously shown above in the rejection of claim 12.
6. Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0360814) in view of Lertrattanapanich et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0060041) and Wang et al. (US Patent no. 6625333) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in vide of Sartor et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0245694).
As per claim 15, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 11.
It is noted that the combination wherein the conflicts are resolved based on lengths of conflicting scaled motion vectors.
However, Sartor teaches wherein the conflicts are resolved based on lengths of conflicting scaled motion vectors (See Sartor [0072], [0133] and [0210]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination Wu, Lertrattanapanich, and Wang et al. to incorporate Sator’s teachings wherein the conflicts are resolved based on lengths of conflicting scaled motion vectors. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Wu, Lertrattanapanich, and Wang et al.
7. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0360814) in view of Lertrattanapanich et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0060041) as applied to claims 3 and 1 above, and further in vide of Chen et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0185325).
As per claims 4-5, it is noted that the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich is silent about wherein the first motion vectors comprise backward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the fourth image frame and pixels of the first image frame and forward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the fourth image frame and pixels of the second image frame, and wherein the second motion vectors comprise backward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the third image frame and pixels of the first image frame and forward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the third image frame and the pixels of the second image frame.
However, Chen suggests wherein the first motion vectors comprise backward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the an image frame and pixels of the first image frame and forward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the image frame and pixels of the second image frame, and wherein the second motion vectors comprise backward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of an image frame and pixels of the first image frame and forward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the image frame and the pixels of the second image frame (See Chen [0266] “selecting, from the one or more first candidate prediction blocks, a candidate prediction block with a minimum pixel difference from the temporary prediction block as the first prediction block of the to-be-processed picture block, and selecting, from the one or more backward candidate prediction blocks”…).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Wu and Lertrattanapanich to incorporate Chen’s teachings to suggest wherein the first motion vectors comprise backward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the an image frame and pixels of the first image frame and forward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the image frame and pixels of the second image frame, and wherein the second motion vectors comprise backward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of an image frame and pixels of the first image frame and forward motion vectors suggestive of differences between pixels of the image frame and the pixels of the second image frame. The motivation for performing such a modification in the above combination is to properly remove redundancy when decoding the picture/frame or image.
NOTE: The Examiner did not make reference to a third or a fourth image as the general teachings of the prior art do meet the broad limitations as claimed. Also, Lertrattanapanich clearly suggests using a third frame interpolation (See Abstract).
Claims 16-20 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.
The claims are allowable over the prior art of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly teach of suggest, in addition to the limitations of claims 1, and 6-8, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: process the first image frame and the second image frame using the motion estimator to generate a first mask; and project the first mask to generate a second mask; wherein to project the first mask, the at least one processor is configured to update mask values of the first mask based on the updated associations between the scaled motion vectors and the pixel positions; and wherein the third image frame is generated further based on the second mask.”
The prior art further fails to teach or suggest “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: process the first image frame and the second image frame using the motion estimator to generate a first mask; and project the first mask to generate a second mask; wherein the third image frame is generated further based on the second mask”.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
