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
`
`LP
`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
`
`02/22/2021
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`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`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.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.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* 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)Z) 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)L) Some**
`a)X) 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.
`3.2.) 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 20210121
`
`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 31 December 2020.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)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.
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`2.
`
`A requestfor continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31
`
`December 2020 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 6 -9, and 13 - 17 have been
`
`considered but are moot because the new groundof rejection does not rely on any
`
`reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically
`
`challenged in the argument.
`
`On pages 7 — 9, applicant argues that Govindaswamydoes not teach assigning
`
`block size based on motion vectors as claimed. 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 referencesindividually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. /n re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 3
`
`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 pixel activity, the pixel activity being 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-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 notexplicitly 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 that is located based
`
`on pixel activity. The mere exemplification of the pixel activity being pixel variance does
`
`not take away from this broader teaching. See /n re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,
`
`216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,
`
`158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)) ("The use of patents as referencesis notlimited to
`
`what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they
`
`are concerned. Theyare part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain").
`
`The combined teachings of Yasugi and Govindaswamy,therefore, reasonably suggests
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 4
`
`to one of ordinaryskill in the art determining block sizes based on motion vectors as
`
`claimed. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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 asfollows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 5
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence presentin the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`7.
`
`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. 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);
`
`o 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 6
`
`information, the sub-block sizes used as prediction units to process
`
`the image); 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
`
`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),
`
`-
`
`the current frame is split into determination blocks each of which includes at least
`
`two of the sub-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,
`
`- 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
`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 boundaryregion (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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 8
`
`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).
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 9
`
`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).
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 10
`
`- 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).
`
`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,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 11
`
`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 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
`
`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-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Avww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/237,099
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 12
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`