`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/853,204
`
`03/29/2013
`
`Toshiyasu SUGIO
`
`201370507A
`
`4899
`
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 East
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`WERNER, DAVID N
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2487
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/03/2018
`
`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):
`e0a@ wenderoth.c0m
`kmiller @ wenderoth.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/853,204 SUGIO ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2487David N. Werner a?”
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with 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 0137 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from 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) 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).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 22 February 2018.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`2a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I 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)|:I 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 EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)IXI Claim(s) 1-12is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)|:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`7)I:l Claim(s) _ is/are rejected.
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`9)|:l Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, 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
`
`
`
`
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`htt
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Z| The drawing(s) filed on 10 March 2016 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)I:I 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)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I 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)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180325
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action for US. Patent Application No. 13/853,204 is responsive to
`
`the Request for Continued Examination filed 22 February 2018, in reply to the
`
`Final Rejection of 3 November 2017 and the Advisory Action of 5 February 2018.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1—12 are pending.
`
`In the Final Rejection of 3 November 2017, claims 1—10 were rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over US. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2012/0189058 A1 (“M”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2005/0111547 A1 (“Holcomb”).
`
`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 22 February 2018 has been entered.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`6.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to the alleged failure of Holcomb to teach
`
`calculating the two weights have been considered and they are not persuasive. It is
`
`unclear what Applicant's point even is, given the paucity of substantial reasoning as
`
`to how Holcomb is deficient in calculating the weights.
`
`Firstly, Applicant mischaracterizes the rejection by alleging that it mapped
`
`the REFDIST value to a claimed weight. Applicant was correct to “respectfully
`
`disagree[ ]” with “a premise that ‘REFDIST’ taught by Holcomb corresponds to the
`
`calculated first weight and the calculated second weight required by the claimed
`
`invention”, because the examiner also disagrees with that premise! To the contrary,
`
`the Final Rejection, even as directly quoted in p. 8 of the 5 February 2018
`
`“REMARKS”, stated, “These scalings in response to values of REFDIST are the
`
`claimed weights” (emphasis added), and as directly quoted in p. 9, stated that when
`
`REFDIST is 0, “the motion vectors for a reference field are halved” for a P frame, or
`
`scaled otherwise "based on factors such as same or opposite polarity of the
`
`reference fields”. Additionally, Applicant admits in p. 9 of the “REMARKS” that
`
`Holcomb discloses in 1] 0119 “that REFDIST is used for various scaling operations”
`
`(emphasis added). These various scaling operations that Applicant admits use
`
`REFDIST, and not REFDIST itself as argued, were, and still are, mapped with the
`
`claimed weights. Because both Applicant and Examiner agree that in Holcomb,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`"REFDIST is neither a first weight nor a second weight", Applicant's strawman
`
`arguments in support of this conclusion are fallacious and irrelevant.
`
`Secondly, it may be possible that Applicant is alleging that Holcomb does not
`
`teach "judging whether or not the first temporal distance and the second temporal
`
`distance satisfy a predetermined condition”, and calculating the weights “based on a
`
`result of the judgment”.
`
`To whatever extent this argument is present in the
`
`“REMARKS”, such argument is not relevant because the m reference, not the
`
`Holcomb reference, was cited to teach the judgment. Applicant is reminded that
`
`one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
`
`208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981);
`
`In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231
`
`U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`7.
`
`
`Applicant’s argument that the Chen and Holcomb references do not teach the
`
`now-required limitations of multi-view video (claims 1—10) and multi-layer video
`
`(11—12) are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. US. Patent No. 5,612,735 A
`
`(“Haskell”) teaches the adaptation and use of multi-layer techniques such as those
`
`of Holcomb for multi-view video compression.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US. C. § 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.
`
`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 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—10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0189058 A1
`
`
`("Chen") 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”).
`
`
`Chen teaches a video encoder and decoder. Regarding claims 1 and 5, fig. 6
`
`illustrates a video coding process for a video coder, defined in 1] 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 Chen process at steps 110 and 112 determines the
`
`first and second temporal distances between a current picture and first and second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`
`reference pictures. Chen 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 Chen process next at
`
`steps 114 and 116 determines whether the first distance is less than, equal to, or
`
`greater than, the second distance. Q at 1H] 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. Q If the
`
`distances are equal, the process sets the picture identifiers based on picture number
`
`values or picture order count (POC) values. Q at 1M] 0024, 0196. The coder may
`
`use the two reference pictures to perform bidirectional prediction to encode a block
`
`predicted from the two reference pictures. Q at abstract, 1] 0025.
`
`In one example,
`
`two motion vectors may be predicted from the two reference pictures and averaged
`
`to form the motion prediction for the block. Q at 1H] 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 Chen 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`
`Chen 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 11
`
`0115. For a B-frame, the reference picture distances for two reference fields are to
`
`be signaled. Q at 1] 0127, derived for each block as fractions relative to the
`
`reference frame distance REFDIST. Q at 1H] 0126—0130. 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. Q at
`
`1H] 0120—123. When this occurs, REFDIST is 0, and the motion vectors from the
`
`reference field are halved for prediction in the current frame. Q at 0124. For a
`
`bidirectional frame, when REFDIST is 0, the formulae for forward and backward
`
`frame reference distances FRFD and BRFD respectively in 1M 0127 and 0130 also
`
`become 0. Other scaling for non-zero values of REFDIST may also be performed as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`described in 1] 0124 and 1] 0129, based on factors such as same or opposite polarity
`
`of the reference fields.
`
`
`Chen 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 1M] 0013 and 0088 that such a combination would improve
`
`prediction accuracy of motion prediction for interlaced field video.
`
`
`The claimed invention differs further from Chen in that the invention teaches
`
`the video is a “multi-view video having a first view and a second view”. However,
`
`Haskell teaches this was known in the art. Haskell 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 Haskell 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 6, in Chen, if both reference pictures are discovered
`
`to be the same picture having the same temporal distance and display order value
`
`(“I 0196, 0200), the encoder will not store a redundant reference to the same
`
`picture twice and only use one instance of the reference picture in the reference
`
`picture list and code the block of the current picture as having only one reference
`
`
`picture as shown in Fig. 5. Chen at 11 0190.
`
`Regarding claims 3 and 7, in Holcomb, if REFDIST = 0 and the current field
`
`is the second field in an interlaced picture, both forward and backward prediction
`
`occur to the nearest adjacent field given the formulae for FRFD and BRFD in 1M]
`
`0127 and 0130.
`
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 8, in the Fig. 7 embodiment of Chen, if the temporal
`
`distances between the two pictures are equal, the coder sets the reference picture in
`
`
`later display order in the single reference picture list. Chen at 1] 0200. This is the
`
`claimed setting the inter-view distance between the current picture and second
`
`reference picture as the second temporal distance when the first condition of the
`
`first and second temporal distances being equal is satisfied. Additionally, in the
`
`
`combination embodiment of Chen and Holcomb, if the first reference picture has a
`
`reference distance FRFD or BRFD of 0 and the second reference picture does not,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/853,204
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`the two different reference pictures are both assigned to the single reference picture
`
`list and included as inter-View distances.
`
`
`Regarding claims 9 and 10, in Chen, a processor, circuit, or chipset (111] 0203—204)
`
`that executes the coding functions stored on a computer-readable medium (“I
`
`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.
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure: US. Patent No. 5,619,256 A.
`
`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 8:30 AM--6 PM.
`
`