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
`
`CP
`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
`
`08/3 1/2020
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-2,4-9 and 11-17 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CJ] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-2,4-9 and 11-17 is/are rejected.
`OO Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`CC) 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) The drawing(s) filed on 31 December 2018 is/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)(1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`cc) None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)L) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin 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 20200822
`
`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 17 August 2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) 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\(Z 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.
`
`

`

`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 argumentsfiled 17 August 2020 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`On pages 7 — 8, applicant argues that Govindaswamy does notteach “a
`
`boundary region between a foreground and a background region is located based on
`
`the motion vectors” as claimed in amended claim 1. While applicant’s arguments are
`
`understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on the combination of
`
`Yasugi and Govindaswamyin maintaining the rejection.
`
`One cannot show nonobviousnessby attacking references individually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. /n re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
`
`USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1986). “Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would
`
`have suggestedto those of ordinary skill in the art." /n re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
`
`USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). At present, the combined teachings of Yasugi and
`
`Govindaswamy reasonably suggest “a boundary region between a foreground region
`
`and a background Is located based on the motion vectors” as claimed in claim 1.
`
`Yasugi first teaches obtaining motion vectors and determining sizes of
`
`processing blocks based on the obtained motion vectors. See, Yasugi, e.g. pars. 160 —
`
`180: describing that the system divides an image frame into blocks, and further into sub-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 3
`
`blocks, obtaining motion information for each sub-block, the motion information used to
`
`determine the size of the sub-blocks. In other words, Yasugi teaches determining
`
`processing block sizes based on pixel activity. Yasugi does not explicitly teach wherein
`
`determining block sizes, a boundary region between a foreground and a background is
`
`located based on the pixel activity. Govindaswamy, however, teachesthis at least at
`
`par. 79. There, Govindaswamy teaches an edge region between a foreground and a
`
`background thatis located based on pixel activity. The combined teachings of Yasugi
`
`and Govindaswamy,therefore, reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art “a
`
`boundary region between a foreground region and a backgroundis located based on
`
`the motion vectors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make
`
`such a combination because the combination 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). The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`3.
`
`Claims 4 — 6 are objected to because ofthe following informalities: claims 4 —6
`
`depend on claim 3. Claim 3 is a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claims 4 —6are interpreted to be dependent on claim 1.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 11 — 13 are objected to because ofthe following informalities: claims 11
`
`— 13 depend on claim 10. Claim 10 is a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is
`
`required. Claims 11 — 13 are interpreted to be dependentonclaim 8.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth 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.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12 - 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
`
`Govindaswamyetal. (US 2003/0007698) (hereinafter Govindaswamy).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claims 1, 8, 16, and 17, Yasugi teaches a decoder, an encoder, a decoding
`
`method, and an encoding method, comprising:
`
`a processor (e.g. Fig. 1, element 62, and par. 129: depicting and describing
`
`a central processing unit); and
`
`a memory, 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 bysplitting a current frame
`
`(e.g. par. 160 — 180: describing that the system divides the image into
`
`macroblocks, then further divides each macroblock into sub-blocks,
`
`and obtains motion vector information for each sub-block);
`
`determines, based on the motion vectors, sizes of processing blocks into
`
`whichthe current frame is to be split (e.g. par. 160 — 180: describing that
`
`the system determines sub-block sizes using the obtain motion
`
`information, the sub-block sizes used as prediction units to process
`
`the image); and
`
`processes each of 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
`
`determined sub-block sizes, wherein using the determined sub-block
`
`sizes to generate a prediction image and a prediction residual is the
`
`equivalent of processing the processing blocks).
`
`Yasugi does notexplicitly teach:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes:
`
`Page 6
`
`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 boundaryregion.
`
`Govindaswamy, however, teaches a method for encoding and decoding:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes:
`
`o aboundary region between a foreground and a backgroundis located
`
`based on pixel activity (e.g. par. 79: describing that the system
`
`determines blocks containing edges between twoother flat regions
`
`based on pixel activity, wherein blocks containing edges between
`
`two other flat regions is the equivalent of a boundary region between
`
`a foreground and a background, wherein pixel activity reasonably
`
`suggests 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 (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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 7
`
`equivalent of a second processing block not included in the
`
`boundaryregion).
`
`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
`
`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 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 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).
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 11, Yasugi and Govindaswamyteachall of the limitations of1
`
`and8, respectively, as discussed above. Yasugi does not explicitly teach:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes, the current frame is split into determination
`
`blocks each of which includes at least two of the sub-blocks, and when, among
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 8
`
`the determination blocks, a determination block includes sub-blocks having
`
`different motion vectors, the determination block is determinedto be included in
`
`the boundary region.
`
`Govindaswamy, however, teaches an encoder and decoder:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes, the current frame is split into determination
`
`blocks each of which includes at least two of the sub-blocks, and when, among
`
`the determination blocks, a determination block includes sub-blocks having
`
`different motion vectors, the determination block is determinedto be included in
`
`the boundary region (e.g. Fig. 3 and pars. 46 — 53: depicting and describing
`
`that the image is first divided into a plurality of macroblocks, each
`
`macroblock including a plurality of sub-blocks, the system determining if
`
`the varianceof pixel activity of the sub-blocks within the macroblock is
`
`greater than a similarity threshold, and determines that the macroblock is a
`
`block located at an edge of an object [see e.g. par. 40: describing that
`
`portions of an image located at an object boundary have high variance] and
`
`is thus further divided, wherein the macroblock is the equivalent of the
`
`determination block, wherein determining that sub-blocks of the
`
`macroblock contain a variancein pixel activity is the equivalent of the sub-
`
`blocks of the determination block having different motion vectors, and
`
`wherein determining the macroblock to be located at an edge of an object
`
`is the equivalent of determining that the determination blockis included in
`
`the boundary region) .
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
`that a determination block belongs to the boundary region when sub-blocks of the
`
`determination block have different motion vectors. 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).
`
`Turning to claims 5 and 12, Yasugi and Govindaswamyteachall of the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 8, respectively, as discussed above. Yasugi does not explicitly teach:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes, when, among the sub-blocks, two sub-blocks
`
`adjacent to each other have different motion vectors, at least one of the two sub-
`
`blocks is determined to be included in the boundary region.
`
`Govindaswamy, however, teaches an encoder and a decoder:
`
`- wherein in determining the sizes, when, among the sub-blocks, two sub-blocks
`
`adjacent to each other have different motion vectors, at least one of the two sub-
`
`blocks is determined to be included in the boundary region (e.g. Fig. 3 and pars.
`
`46 — 53: depicting and describing that for each macroblock, the system
`
`determines whether sub-blocks within the macroblock have a variance of
`
`pixel activity greater than a threshold, and determinesthat at least one of
`
`the sub-blocks belongs to a region along the edge of object, wherein the
`
`varianceof pixel activity is the equivalent of different motion vectors, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 10
`
`wherein a region along the edge of an object is the equivalent of a
`
`boundaryregion).
`
`It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`teachings of Yasugi by adding the teachings of Govindaswamyin order to determine
`
`adjacent sub-blocks with different motion vectors are to be included in the boundary
`
`region. 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 greaterpixel activity).
`
`Regarding claims 6 and 13, Yasugi 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 11
`
`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).
`
`Turning claims 7 and 14, Yasugi 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 and Govindaswamyteachall of the limitations of claim 8,
`
`as discussed above. Yasugi further teaches:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 12
`
`- wherein the encoder generates an encoded stream which does not include
`
`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}).
`
`Conclusion
`
`9.
`
`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 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 date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 13
`
`10.=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:/Avww.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 wherethis 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 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-
`
`272-1000.
`
`SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit 2487
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2487
`
`/Dave Czekaj/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
`
`Page 14
`
`