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
`
`11/14/2018
`
`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):
`eoa @ wenderoth. com
`kmiller @ wenderotheom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`13/853,204
`Examiner
`David N Werner
`
`Applicant(s)
`SUGIO et al.
`Art Unit
`2487
`
`AIA 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 25 June 2018.
`[: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)
`
`1,5 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) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] 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 20181108
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action for US. Patent Application No. 13/853,204 is
`
`responsive to
`
`communications filed 25 June 2018, in reply to the Non—Final Rejection of 3 April 2018.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 5, and 9—12 are pending.
`
`In the prior Office action, claims 1—12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`US. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0189058 A1 in view of US. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2005/0111547 A1 (“Holcomb”) and in view of US. 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.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been
`
`fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`With respect to the allegations that the claimed invention improves over a “conventional
`
`method” in which 0 can be a reference picture weight, it is noted that none of the claims specify that
`
`the first and second weights must be non—zero values. As such, the Holcomb zero weights under
`
`certain conditions qualify as the claimed weights under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`standard.
`
`It is further noted that Applicant did not present a substantial explanation of how the claim
`
`amendments allegedly distinguish from the applied prior art references, as required under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.111(c).
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 U5C§103
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1, 5, and 9—12 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over US. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0189058 A1 (”M") in view of US. 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 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 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
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 4
`
`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 llll 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
`
`may be predicted from the two reference pictures and averaged to form the motion prediction for the
`
`block.
`
`I_d at 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 B—frame, the reference picture distances for two reference
`
`fields are to be signaled.
`
`I_d at 1] 0127, derived for each block as fractions relative to the reference
`
`frame distance REFDIST. The difference between these reference picture distances is at least
`
`mathematically equivalent to the claimed inter—view index. I_d at 111] 0126—0130. The REFDIST syntax
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 5
`
`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“] 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 for prediction in the current frame.
`
`I_d at 0124. 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. 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 described in 1] 0124 and fl 0129, based on factors such as same
`
`or opposite polarity of the reference fields.
`
`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 Chen
`
`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 Chen, 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, 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
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 13/853,204
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 6
`
`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 (111] 0203—204) that executes the
`
`coding functions stored on a computer—readable medium (llll 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
`
`9.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy
`
`as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 of this final action.
`
`