www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/237,099
`
`12/31/2018
`
`Takahiro NISHI
`
`2018-2246A
`
`1866
`
`Pp
`Lind&
`Wenderoth,
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`BRUMFIELD, SHANIKA M
`
`2487
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/03/2021
`
`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@wenderoth.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/237,099
`NISHI etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD
`2487
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom 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, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 19 May 2021.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) 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 Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-2,6-9 and 13-17 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-2,6-9 and 13-17 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible 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 PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)[¥j] The drawing(s) filed on See Continuation Sheetis/are: a)(¥) 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:
`—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)D All
`1.1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) 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) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210813
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-326)
`
`Application No. 16/237,099
`
`Continuation of Application Papers 11): 31 December 2018
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2021 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`On pages 7 — 9, applicant argues that Yasugi does not teach the processing
`
`blocks as claimed because Yasugi teaches processing in units of macroblocks, and
`
`each macroblock doesnot include a plurality of macroblocks. While applicant’s
`
`arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on Yasugi
`
`in maintaining the rejection.
`
`Yasugi teaches that each image is first divided into processing blocks, and the
`
`processing blocks including one or more determination blocks, as claimed. Yasugi first
`
`teaches that the system processeson a partition basis. See, Yasugi, e.g. par. 159:
`
`describing that each macroblock is processed based on partitions included within the
`
`macroblock. Yasugi next teaches that size and shapeof partitions is based on motion
`
`information of pixels within each potential partition. See, Yasugi, e.g. Fig. 5 and pars.
`
`160 — 180: depicting and describing that the size and shape of partitions is based on
`
`motion information, wherein each pixel within a partition is the equivalent of a
`
`determination block, and wherein eachpartition is the equivalent of a processing block.
`
`Yasugi, therefore, teaches that each image is first divided into processing blocks, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 3
`
`the processing blocks including one or more determination blocks, as claimed. The
`
`rejection is maintained.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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.
`
`5.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence presentin the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 4
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6 — 9, and 13 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Yasugi et al. (US 2012/0213278) (hereinafter Yasugi) in view of
`
`Kiuchi et al. (US 2011/0273449) (hereinafter Kiuchi) in view of Govindaswamyetal.
`
`(US 2003/0007698) (hereinafter Govindaswamy).
`
`Regarding claims 1, 8, 16, and 17, Yasugi teaches a decoder, an encoder, a decoding
`
`method, and an encoding method, comprising:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`aprocessor (e.g. Fig. 1, element 62, and par. 129: depicting and describing
`
`a central processing unit); and
`
`amemory, wherein using the memory, the processor (e.g. Fig. 1, element 63,
`
`and par. 130: depicting and describing a memorythat causesthecentral
`
`processing unit to execute a program):
`
`o obtains motion vectors of sub-blocks obtained by splitting a current frame
`
`(e.g. par. 159 — 180: describing that the system divides the image into
`
`macroblocks, then further divides each macroblockinto partitions,
`
`and obtains motion vector information for each partition, the frame
`
`processed ona partition basis, wherein each partition is the
`
`equivalent of a sub-block);
`
`o determines, based on the motion vectors, sizes of processing blocks into
`
`whichthe current frame is to be split (e.g. par. 159 — 180: describing that
`
`the system determinespartition sizes using the obtain motion
`
`information, the partition sizes used as prediction units to process
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 5
`
`the image, wherein the partition size is the equivalent of processing
`
`block size); and
`
`o processes eachof the processing blocks (e.g. Fig. 3, elements 103 —
`
`105, and pars. 181 — 190: depicting and describing that the system
`
`generates a prediction image anda prediction residual using the
`
`determinedpartition sizes, wherein using the determined partition
`
`sizes to generate a prediction image and a prediction residual is the
`
`equivalent of processing the processing blocks),
`
`-
`
`the current frame is split into determination blocks each of which includes at least
`
`two of the sub-blocks (e.g. par. 160 — 180: describing that the system
`
`determines divides the frame into partitions, each partition originally
`
`including sub-partitions);
`
`-
`
`each of the processing blocks is block including one or moreof the
`
`determination blocks (e.g. par. 159: describing that each macroblock within a
`
`frame includes one or more partitions, wherein each partition is the
`
`equivalent of the one or more determination blocks)
`
`Yasugi does not explicitly teach:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes:
`
`o aboundary region between a foreground and a backgroundis located
`
`based on the motion vectors, and
`
`o
`
`among the processing blocks, a size of a first processing block included in
`
`the boundary region is set to a size smaller than a size of a second
`
`processing block not included in the boundary region,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 6
`
`- when, among the determination blocks, a determination block includes only sub-
`
`blocks having a first motion vector, the determination block is determined to be
`
`included in the background,
`
`- when, among the determination blocks, a determination block includes only sub-
`
`blocks having a second motion vector different from the first motion vector, the
`
`determination block is determined to be includedin the foreground, and
`
`- when among the determination blocks, a determination block includes both a
`
`sub-block having the first motion vector and a sub-block having the second
`
`motion vector, the determination block is determined to be included in the
`
`boundary region.
`
`Kiuchi, however, teaches a method for image processing:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes:
`
`o aboundary region between a foreground and a backgroundis located
`
`based on pixel activity (e.g. par. 77: describing that the system
`
`determines an adjacent region located between a foreground and a
`
`background based on motion vectors, wherein the adjacent region is
`
`the equivalent of the boundary region),
`
`- when, among the determination blocks, a determination block includes only sub-
`
`blocks having a first motion vector, the determination block is determined to be
`
`included in the background; when, among the determination blocks, a
`
`determination block includes only sub-blocks having a second motion vector
`
`different from the first motion vector, the determination block is determined to be
`
`included in the foreground, and when among the determination blocks, a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 7
`
`determination block includes both a sub-block having the first motion vector and
`
`a sub-block having the second motion vector, the determination blockis
`
`determinedto be included in the boundary region (e.g. par. 77: describing that
`
`the system determines an adjacent region between a foreground and a
`
`background based on motion vectors, the foreground region havingafirst
`
`motion vector value, the background region having a second motion vector
`
`value different from the first, and the adjacent region having adjacent
`
`pixels with motion vectors from the foreground image and the background
`
`image that are different from each other, wherein the adjacent region is the
`
`equivalent of the boundary region).
`
`Govindaswamy, however, teaches a method for image encoding and decoding:
`
`- wherein determining the sizes:
`
`o
`
`among the processing blocks, a size of a first processing block included in
`
`the boundary region is set to a size smaller than a size of a second
`
`processing block not included in the boundary region (e.g. par. 79:
`
`describing that blocks containing edges between twoflat regions
`
`have a smaller block size than blocks that are in a flat region,
`
`wherein blocks containing edges between twoflat regions is the
`
`equivalentof a first processing block included in the boundary
`
`region, and wherein the blocks belonging to flat region is the
`
`equivalent of a second processing block not included in the
`
`boundaryregion).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 8
`
`It therefore would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`teachings of Yasugi by adding the teachings of Kiuchi in order to determine a
`
`background region having a first motion vector, a foreground region having a second
`
`motion vector different from the first motion vector, and a boundary region having both
`
`the first motion vector and the second motion vector, and by adding the teachings of
`
`Govindaswamyin order to determine processing blocks belong to a boundary region
`
`are set to a smaller size than processing blocks not belonging to the boundary region.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification
`
`because the modification allows for a boundary region between a foreground region and
`
`a background region to be identified, and because the modification improves the visual
`
`quality of reconstructed images (Govindaswamy,e.g. par. 79: describing the desire
`
`to improve visual quality of reconstructed images by assigning smaller block
`
`sizes to areas containing greater pixel activity).
`
`Turning to claims 2 and 9, Yasugi, Kiuchi, and Govindaswamyteachall of the
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively, as discussed above. Yasugi further teaches:
`
`- wherein the motion vectors are obtained by calculation performed using decoded
`
`frames (e.g. pars. 174 — 175: depicting and describing that the motion
`
`vectors are obtained by a calculation performed using reference images,
`
`wherein reference imagesis the equivalent of decoded frames).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding claims 6 and 13, Yasugi, Kiuchi, and Govindaswamyteachall of the
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively, as discussed above. Yasugi does not
`
`explicitly teach:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes, a size of a processing block included in the
`
`boundary region among the processing blocksis set to a smallest usable size of
`
`the sizes of the processing blocks.
`
`Govindaswamy, however, teaches an encoder and a decoder:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes, a size of a processing block included in the
`
`boundary region among the processing blocksis set to a smallest usable size of
`
`the sizes of the processing blocks(e.g. Fig. 3 and pars. 46 — 53: depicting and
`
`describing that a size of a block included in a macroblock determinedto in
`
`a at the edge of an object is set to the smallest useable size [a 2x2 block
`
`size] of the possible sizes, wherein a region at the edge of an objectis the
`
`equivalent of the boundary region).
`
`It therefore would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`teachings of Yasugi by adding the teachings of Govindaswamyin order to determine the
`
`size of a processing block included in the boundary region to the smallest usable size.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification
`
`because the modification improves the visual quality of reconstructed images
`
`(Govindaswamy,e.g. par. 79: describing the desire to improve visual quality of
`
`reconstructed images by assigning smaller block sizes to areas containing
`
`greater pixel activity).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 10
`
`Turning claims 7 and 14, Yasugi, Kiuchi, and Govindaswamyteachall of the limitations
`
`of claims 1 and 8, respectively, as discussed above. Yasugi further teaches:
`
`- wherein the processing blocks are processing units for frequency transform (e.g-
`
`pars. 191 — 242: describing that the system determines frequency
`
`transformation partitions using the prediction partition information, the
`
`frequency transformation partitions sizes determined based on a rate
`
`distortion cost, the rate distortion cost using motion vector information,
`
`wherein frequency transformation partitions is the equivalent of processing
`
`blocks that are processing units for frequency transform).
`
`Turning to claim 15, Yasugi, Kiuchi, and Govindaswamyteachall of the limitations of
`
`claim 8, as discussed above. Yasugi further teaches:
`
`- wherein the encoder generates an encoded stream which does notinclude
`
`information indicating the determined sizes of the processing blocks(e.g. par.
`
`268: describing that the system doesnotinclude transformation integration
`
`information, the transformation integration information indicating the
`
`determinedsizes of transformation unit blocks [see, e.g. Fig. 12 and par.
`
`218: depicting and describing that the transformation integration
`
`information is information indicating regions that frequency transformation
`
`is applied to}).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 11
`
`7.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy
`
`as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst replyis filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date ofthis final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`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 mailing date ofthis final action.
`
`8.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whosetelephone number is
`
`(571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, David 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 12
`
`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 https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on accessto 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-
`
`2/2-1000.
`
`SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit 2487
`
`/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2487
`
`/Dave Czekaj/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
`
`