UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`13/853,204
`
`03/29/2013
`
`Toshiyasu SUGIO
`
`201370507A
`
`4899
`
`Wenderoth, L1nd & Ponaek, L.L.P.
`1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 East
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`WERNER'DAVID N
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2487
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/21/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`eoa @ wenderoth. com
`kmiller @ wenderotheom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`13/853,204
`Examiner
`David N Werner
`
`Applicant(s)
`SUGIO et al.
`Art Unit
`2487
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`No
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12 February 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1,5 and 9—12 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1,5 and 9—12 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 10 March 2016 is/are: a). accepted or b)C] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[:] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190315
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 13/853,204 is responsive to the Request
`
`for Continued Examination filed 12 February 2019, in reply to the Final Rejection of 14 November
`
`2018.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 5, and 9—12 are pending.
`
`In the Final Rejection of 14 November 2018, claims 1, 5, and 9—12 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0189058 A1 (“Chen”) in
`
`view of US. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0111547 A1 (“Holcomb”) and in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,612,735 A (“Haskell”).
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`4.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre—AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
`
`5.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for
`
`continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been
`
`timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 February 2019 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`6.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`In the B—picture embodiment of the Holcomb reference, as described in 1“] 0126—133,
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 3
`
`when REFDIST : 0, that is, when the claimed second condition is met, FRFD, corresponding with
`
`a claimed first weight, is 0, according to the formula in 1] 0127. Similarly, BRFD, corresponding with
`
`a claimed second weight, is also 0, according to the formula given in 1] 0130. If the claims were to be
`
`amended to show that the process operates over bidirectionally—predicted video, such as the two
`
`reference pictures being forward and backward reference pictures or the first and second temporal
`
`distances being forward or backward temporal distances, this amendment would distinguish from the
`
`Holcomb reference. Upon additional search and consideration, the examiner has determined
`
`that such an amendment would place the claims in condition for allowance, as this modification
`
`would change the principle of operation of the Holcomb B—picture embodiment, and there be no
`
`other reference prior art that teaches or suggests this feature. However, the claims as currently filed
`
`also are applicable to a P—picture, in which the two reference pictures are in the same temporal
`
`direction.
`
`In this case, 1] 0124 describes a “halving” and a “doubling” of motion vector predictors
`
`derived from the same polarity and opposite polarity reference fields when REFDIST : 0, which are
`
`two non—zero weights.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 U5C§103
`
`7.
`
`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 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.
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth
`in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
`art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 4
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1, 5, and 9—12 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0189058 A1 (”M") in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2005/0111547 A1 (”Holcomb") and in view of US. Patent No. 5,612,735
`
`A (“Haskell”).
`
`m teaches a video encoder and decoder. Regarding claims 1 and 5, fig. 6 illustrates a video
`
`coding process for a video coder, defined in ll 0191 as encompassing a video encoder and a video
`
`decoder. As such, the Fig. 6 process is analogous to both the claim 1 image coding method and the
`
`claim 5 image decoding method. As shown in Fig. 6, the m process at steps 110 and 112 determines
`
`the first and second temporal distances between a current picture and first and second reference
`
`pictures. m at 1] 0193. This incorporates the process of “determining a temporal distance between
`
`a current picture to be” coded or decoded and the first and second reference pictures to which the
`
`current block included in the current picture refers as the first and second temporal distances. The
`
`m process next at steps 114 and 116 determines whether the first distance is less than, equal to, or
`
`greater than, the second distance.
`
`I_d. at llll 0194—195. This process is the claimed step of “judging
`
`whether the first temporal distance and the second temporal distance satisfy a predetermined
`
`condition”.
`
`If the distances are not equal, the process places an identifier for the picture with the
`
`smaller distance earlier in a reference picture list than the picture with the greater distance.
`
`I_d. If the
`
`distances are equal, the process sets the picture identifiers based on picture number values or picture
`
`order count (POC) values.
`
`I_d. at 1“] 0024, 0196. Specifically, the distances being equal is the claimed
`
`“first condition where the first temporal distance and the second temporal distance are equal”. The
`
`coder may use the two reference pictures to perform bidirectional prediction to encode a block
`
`predicted from the two reference pictures. I_d. at abstract, 1] 0025. In one example, two motion vectors
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 5
`
`may be predicted from the two reference pictures and averaged to form the motion prediction for the
`
`block.
`
`I_d at 1]1] 0130—132. This is the claimed generating a predictive image for the current block by
`
`adding two blocks included in the two reference pictures, referred to by the current block.
`
`The claimed invention differs from m first in that the claimed invention calculates weights
`
`of the two reference pictures based on the result of the judgment and weighing the two blocks of the
`
`two reference pictures using these weights. m teaches scaling the motion vectors from the two
`
`reference pictures ”according to a temporal distance between the first motion vector and the second
`
`motion vector” at 1] 0131, but this is not sufficient by itself to produce weights according to ”whether
`
`or not the first temporal distance and the second temporal distance satisfy a predetermined condition”.
`
`Holcomb is directed to a video encoder and decoder that signal reference frame distances for
`
`interlaced video. Regarding claims 1 and 5, Holcomb teaches the use of a reference frame distance
`
`REFDIST that indicates the number of frames between the current interlaced frame and a previous
`
`reference frame. Holcomb at 1] 0115. For a P—frame, the reference picture distances for two reference
`
`fields are to be signaled; one for a same—field polarity, and one for an opposite polarity. I_d at 1] 0121.
`
`The difference between these reference picture distances is at least mathematically equivalent to the
`
`claimed inter—view indeX.
`
`I_d at 1]1] 0126—0130 (Bfmme embodimem‘). The REFDIST syntaX element is
`
`used to scale between the current frame and the reference frame, designed for use in an interlaced
`
`field that may have as a reference field the other field in the same frame as the most recent reference
`
`field, as shown in Fig. 91. I_d at 1]1] 0120—123. When this occurs, REFDIST is 0, the claimed “second
`
`condition where a value of the first temporal distance is 0” is met, and the motion vectors from the
`
`reference field are halved and doubled for prediction in the current frame.
`
`I_d at 1] 0124, thus being
`
`weighed as non—zero weights as claimed. In this scenario, the same and opposite polarity fields in the
`
`reference picture correspond with the claimed two first and second views, and REFDIST, the claimed
`
`“inter—view distance”, is zero.
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 6
`
`m teaches the a majority of the claimed invention except for details of use of conditions
`
`related to reference frame distance to weigh reference frame blocks. Holcomb teaches it was known
`
`the art to scale reference vectors based on reference field conditions. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Holcomb reference picture syntax in the m
`
`coder, since Holcomb states in llll 0013 and 0088 that such a combination would improve prediction
`
`accuracy of motion prediction for interlaced field video.
`
`The claimed invention differs further from m, even in combination with Holcomb, in that
`
`the invention teaches the video is a “multi—view video having a first view and a second view” and
`
`Holcomb teaches a multi—field video in which each frame has interlaced first and second fields.
`
`However, HLkell teaches this was known in the art. HLkell is directed to a stereoscopic or “multi—
`
`view” video codec (col. 3: lines 47—49) that uses scalable techniques from the MPEG—2 codec (col. 4:
`
`lines 12—15). Figs. 6—8 illustrate examples of video produced using the HLkell system, including
`
`frames such as frame 650, frame 751, and frame 850 that each have two direct reference pictures. It
`
`is respectfully submitted it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the claimed invention to apply the Chen techniques to the Haskell multi—view video for the increased
`
`utility of stereoscopic viewing.
`
`Regarding claims 9 and 10, in Chen, a processor, circuit, or chipset (1W 0203—204) that executes the
`
`coding functions stored on a computer—readable medium (W 0201—202) is the claimed apparatus
`
`comprising control circuitry that executes the method and storage accessible to the control circuitry.
`
`Regarding claims 11 and 12, all things equal to claims 1 and 5, Haskell teaches that it uses
`
`existing scalable video techniques to produce multi—view video, in which case the different views are
`
`a special type of scalable layers. Haskell at abstract, col. 4: lines 12—39.
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 7
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants
`
`disclosure:
`
`0 US. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0198850 A1
`
`0 US. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0243103 A1
`
`0 US. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0285815 A1
`
`0 US. Patent No. 6,057,884
`
`11.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272—9662. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached on M——F 10:00—6:30.
`
`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,
`
`Dave Czekaj can be reached on 571.272.7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may
`
`be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system,
`
`see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system,
`
`contact the Electronic Business Center (EEC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would like assistance
`
`