UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/915,588
`
`03/08/2018
`
`Virginie DRUGEON
`
`2018-0363A
`
`9949
`
`10/29/2019
`- 759°
`”5044
`Wenderoth, L1nd & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`
`Washington DC 20036
`
`SUH‘ JOSEPH JINWOO
`
`2485
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/29/2019
`
`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 @ wenderothcom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/915,588
`Examiner
`JOSEPH SUH
`
`Applicant(s)
`DRUGEON etal.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2485
`Yes
`
`- 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 10/15/19.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] 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—20 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) fl 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 aflowabie. 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
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] 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)D All
`
`b)I:l Some**
`
`c)C] 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 20191024
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Claim Status
`
`This Office Action responds to reply filed on 10/15/19 regarding application 15/915588
`
`that was initially filed on 3/8/18. Claims 1-20 are pending.
`
`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 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 maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
`identicallydisclosed as set forth in section 102 ofthis title, if the differences between the claimed
`invention and the priorart are such that the claimed invention as awhole would have been obvious
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to
`which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe negated by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 3
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6,10,11,13 -15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karcewicz, US 2003/0231795 A1
`
`(hereinafter Karcewicz) in view of Kim et. al., US 2015/0264406 A1 (hereinafter
`
`Kim).
`
`As for claim 1, Karcewicz discloses an encoding device comprising: processing
`
`circuitry ([0107], e.g., processor); and memory ([0107], e.g., memory), wherein, by
`
`using the memory ([0107], e.g., memory),
`
`the processing circuitry refers to, as a
`
`plurality of reference samples ([0040], e.g., blocks U and L), either a plurality of pixels
`
`located on a left of a current block ([0040], e.g., block C) to be predicted or a plurality
`
`of pixels located above the current block ([0040], e.g., block C) to be predicted.
`
`Karcewicz does not explicitly disclose identifies, as a prediction parameter, at
`
`least one of a block size of the current block to be predicted and an intra prediction
`
`mode, determines whether or not the prediction parameter identified is a predetermined
`
`parameter, performs, when the determination is made that the prediction parameter
`
`identified is the predetermined parameter, filtering on a pixel value of a current
`
`reference sample to be processed included in the plurality of reference samples, using
`
`pixel values of the plurality of reference samples; generates a prediction image of the
`
`current block to be predicted by performing intra prediction using the pixel value of the
`
`current reference sample to be processed, the pixel value having been filtered in the
`
`filtering; and calculates a difference between the current block to be predicted and the
`
`prediction image, and when performing the filtering, the processing circuitry: determines
`
`a weight for each of the plurality of reference samples, based on a distance between the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 4
`
`reference sample and the current reference sample to be processed and a difference in
`
`pixel value between the reference sample and the current reference sample to be
`
`processed; and performs filtering on the pixel value of the current reference sample to
`
`be processed by weighted addition using each of the pixel values of the plurality of
`
`reference samples and the weight determined for each reference sample.
`
`However, Kim teaches identifies ([0193], e.g., determine), as a prediction
`
`parameter, at least one of a block size ([0193], e.g., block size) of the current block
`
`([0193], e.g., block) to be predicted and an intra prediction mode, determines whether
`
`or not the prediction parameter identified is a predetermined parameter ([0193], e.g.,
`
`maximum allowable transform block size and threshold block size), performs,
`
`when the determination is made that the prediction parameter identified is the
`
`predetermined parameter, filtering ([0081], e.g., filtering) on a pixel value of a current
`
`reference sample (element 84A in Fig. 4) to be processed included in the plurality of
`
`reference samples, using pixel values of the plurality of reference samples (element
`
`84A in Fig. 4); generates a prediction image ([0020], e.g., intra-prediction) of the
`
`current block to be predicted by performing intra prediction ([0020], e.g., intra-
`
`prediction) using the pixel value of the current reference sample to be processed, the
`
`pixel value having been filtered in the filtering ([0081], e.g., filtering); and calculates a
`
`difference ([0054], e.g., residual) between the current block to be predicted and the
`
`prediction image, and when performing the filtering ([0081], e.g., filtering), the
`
`processing circuitry determines a weight ([0082], e.g., based and [0098], e.g., sum)
`
`for each of the plurality of reference samples, based on a distance ([0082], e.g.,
`
`geometrical distance) between the reference sample and the current reference
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 5
`
`sample to be processed and a difference ([0082], e.g., pixel value difference) in pixel
`
`value between the reference sample and the current reference sample to be processed;
`
`and performs filtering ([0081], e.g., filtering) on the pixel value of the current reference
`
`sample to be processed by weighted addition using each of the pixel values of the
`
`plurality of reference samples and the weight determined for each reference sample
`
`([0098], e.g., weighted sum).
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz and Kim before him/her to modify the spatial prediction
`
`based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of deblock filtering using pixel
`
`distance deblock filtering using pixel distance of Kim in order to improve visual quality
`
`by smoothing block artifacts based on geometrical distance and pixel value difference
`
`as taught by Kim ([0025]).
`
`As for claim 2, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 1.
`
`Karcewicz does not explicitly teach when determining the weight for each
`
`reference sample, the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight for the reference
`
`sample when the distance is longer.
`
`However, Kim teaches when determining the weight for each reference sample,
`
`the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight for the reference sample when the
`
`distance is longer ([0100], e.g., (N-n(i))/N).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 6
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz and Kim before him/her to modify the spatial prediction
`
`based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of deblock filtering using pixel
`
`distance deblock filtering using pixel distance of Kim in order to improve visual quality
`
`by smoothing block artifacts based on geometrical distance and pixel value difference
`
`as taught by Kim ([0025]).
`
`As for claim 4, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 1.
`
`Karcewicz does not explicitly teach the difference in pixel value is a difference in
`
`luminance value.
`
`However, Kim teaches the difference in pixel value is a difference in luminance
`
`value ([0082], e.g., pixel value difference).
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz and Kim before him/her to modify the spatial prediction
`
`based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of deblock filtering using pixel
`
`distance deblock filtering using pixel distance of Kim in order to improve visual quality
`
`by smoothing block artifacts based on geometrical distance and pixel value difference
`
`as taught by Kim ([0025]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 7
`
`As for claim 5, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 1.
`
`In addition, Karcewicz further discloses a first parameter ([0040], e.g., block
`
`C, N.B., block size) based on a block size of the current block to be predicted.
`
`Karcewicz does not explicitly teach when determining the weight for each
`
`reference sample, the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight for the reference
`
`sample when a ratio of the distance with respect to a first parameter based on a block
`
`size of the current block to be predicted is larger.
`
`However, Kim teaches when determining the weight for each reference sample,
`
`the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight for the reference sample when a
`
`ratio of the distance with respect to a first parameter based on a block size of the
`
`current block to be predicted is larger ([0082], e.g., geometrical distance).
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz and Kim before him/her to modify the spatial prediction
`
`based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of deblock filtering using pixel
`
`distance deblock filtering using pixel distance of Kim in order to improve visual quality
`
`by smoothing block artifacts based on geometrical distance and pixel value difference
`
`as taught by Kim ([0025]).
`
`As for claim 6, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 5.
`
`In addition, Karcewicz further discloses the first parameter indicates a larger
`
`value when the block size of the current block to be predicted is larger ([0040], e.g.,
`
`block C, N.B., block size).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 8
`
`As for claim 10, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 1, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 11, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 2, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 13, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 4, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 14, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 5, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 15, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 6, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 19, the claim recites an encoding method of the device of claim 1,
`
`and is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 20, the claim recites a decoding method of the device of claim 1,
`
`and is similarly analyzed.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 9
`
`2.
`
`Claims 3, 7 - 9, 12, and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Karcewicz in view of Kim, and further in view of
`
`Krishnan et. al., US 2013/0121568 A1 (hereinafter Krishnan).
`
`As for claim 3, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 1.
`
`Karcewicz as modified by Kim does not explicitly teach when determining the
`
`weight for each reference sample, the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight
`
`for the reference sample when the difference in pixel value is larger.
`
`However, Krishnan teaches when determining the weight for each reference
`
`sample, the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight for the reference sample
`
`when the difference in pixel value is larger ([0017], e.g., intensity).
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz, Kim, and Krishnan before him/her to modify the spatial
`
`prediction based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of system and method of
`
`image upsampling of Krishnan in order to take advantage of advantages of the
`
`Gaussian filter such as reducing nois.
`
`As for claim 7, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 1.
`
`Karcewicz as modified by Kim does not explicitly teach when determining the
`
`weight for each reference sample, the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 10
`
`for the reference sample when a ratio of the difference in pixel value with respect to a
`
`second parameter based on contrast of the plurality of reference samples is larger.
`
`However, Krishnan teaches when determining the weight for each reference
`
`sample, the processing circuitry determines a smaller weight for the reference sample
`
`when a ratio of the difference in pixel value with respect to a second parameter ([0018],
`
`e.g., Equation 1.4) based on contrast of the plurality of reference samples is larger
`
`([0017], e.g., intensity).
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz, Kim, and Krishnan before him/her to modify the spatial
`
`prediction based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of system and method of
`
`image upsampling of Krishnan in order to take advantage of advantages of the
`
`Gaussian filter such as reducing nois.
`
`As for claim 8, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 7.
`
`Karcewicz as modified by Kim does not explicitly teach the second parameter
`
`indicates a smaller value when the contrast of the plurality of reference samples is
`
`lower.
`
`However, Krishnan teaches the second parameter indicates a smaller value
`
`when the contrast of the plurality of reference samples is lower ([0018], e.g., Equation
`
`1.4).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 11
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz, Kim, and Krishnan before him/her to modify the spatial
`
`prediction based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of system and method of
`
`image upsampling of Krishnan in order to take advantage of advantages of the
`
`Gaussian filter such as reducing nois.
`
`As for claim 9, mostof limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection
`
`of Claim 1.
`
`Karcewicz as modified by Kim does not explicitly teach when (i) positions of the
`
`current reference sample to be processed and a given one of the reference samples in
`
`an orthogonal coordinate system are respectively represented as (i, j) and (k, 1), (ii) the
`
`pixel value of the current reference sample to be processed and the pixel value of the
`
`given one of the reference samples are respectively represented as l (i, j) and l (k, 1),
`
`and(iii) a first parameter and a second parameter are respectively represented as ad
`
`and uy,the processing circuitry determines, when determining the weight for each
`
`reference sample, the weight of the given one of the reference samples according to an
`
`,,..lt..,5‘‘
`expression below, [Math. 1] w(i,j,k,l) = f”
`*‘
`
`where the weight is
`
`denoted as c (i, j, k, 1).
`
`However, Krishnan teaches when (i) positions of the current reference sample to
`
`be processed and a given one of the reference samples in an orthogonal coordinate
`
`system are respectively represented as (i, j) and (k, 1), (ii) the pixel value of the current
`
`reference sample to be processed and the pixel value of the given one of the reference
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 12
`
`samples are respectively represented as l (i, j) and l (k, 1), and(iii) a first parameter and
`
`a second parameter are respectively represented as ad and uy,the processing circuitry
`
`determines, when determining the weight for each reference sample, the weight of the
`
`given one of the reference samples according to an expression below, [Math. 1] w(i,j,k,l)
`
`~:z: x.
`
`.)
`
`
`"
`
`3s
`
`' where the weight is denoted as c (i, j, k, 1) ([0017], e.g.,
`
`......................................
`
`= ‘3’
`
`‘
`
`"
`
`Equation 1.3).
`
`Therefore, given the teachings as awhole, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having
`
`the references of Karcewicz, Kim, and Krishnan before him/her to modify the spatial
`
`prediction based intra—coding of Karcewicz with the teaching of system and method of
`
`image upsampling of Krishnan in order to take advantage of advantages of the
`
`Gaussian filter such as reducing nois.
`
`As for claim 12, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 3, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 16, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 7, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`As for claim 17, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 8, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 13
`
`As for claim 18, the claim recites a decoding device of the device of claim 9, and
`
`is similarly analyzed.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments, filed 10/15/19, have been considered but are moot because the
`
`arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure:
`
`US 2017/0094285 A1 discloses improved video intra prediction using position-
`
`dependent prediction combination in video coding.
`
`US 2017/0231593 A1 discloses a radiation image processing apparatus
`
`Applicant 's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §
`
`706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 14
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571 -270-
`
`7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00
`
`PM.
`
`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 on 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 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 (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO
`
`Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call
`
`800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/915,588
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 15
`
`/JOSEPH SUH/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
`
`