DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections 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.
The factual inquiries 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 present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US 2015/0365688 A1) in view of Lawrence (US 2011/0110416 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 19, Su discloses a computer-implemented method/CRM/system for transcoding an input video from a first format to an output video in a desired format (e.g. Fig. 1 and Para [0054-0055]), the method comprising: decoding the input video from the first format into a first set of video data frames (e.g. Para [0048]);
encoding the first set of video data frames into an intermediate video based on a second video format (e.g. Para [0041-0042, 0056]);
encoding the first set of video data frames into a temporary output video based on the desired format (e.g. Para [0037]);
analyzing the temporary output video to extract encoding statistics (e.g. Para [0100]);
determining optimized encoding parameters for encoding a second set of video data frames into the output video based on the extracted encoding statistics (e.g. Para [0115]);
decoding the intermediate video into a second set of video data frames (e.g. Para [0048]);
encoding the second set of video data frames into the output video based on the desired format and the optimized encoding parameters (e.g. Para [0112-0113]).
Although Su discloses a first format and a second format, but does not disclose wherein the second video format is fast-decode format.
However, Lawrence discloses wherein the second video format is fast-decode format (e.g. para [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include wherein the second video format is fast-decode format of Lawrence to the method of Su because doing so would allow the system to partial decode, allow hardware processing, and alpha blending. (e.g. para [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Su further discloses wherein the analyzing the temporary output video comprises obtaining metrics for the temporary output video (e.g. Para [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Su further discloses wherein the determining optimized encoding parameters is based on the metrics for the temporary output video (e.g. para [0115, 0126-0127]).
Regarding claim 4, Su further discloses wherein the first format is a complex decode format (e.g. para [0079-0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Su discloses wherein the complex decode format is one of ProRes or JPEG 2000 (e.g. para [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Su and Lawrence disclose the method of claim 6, and Lawrence further discloses wherein the fast-decode format is a substantially lossless video encoding format (e.g. para [0061-0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Su and Lawrence disclose the method of claim 6, and Su further discloses wherein the second video format is one of H.264, H.265, HEVC, FFV1, VP9, MPEG-2 (e.g. para [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Su further discloses wherein the desired format is one of H.265, AV1, HEVC, FFV1, VP9, MPEG-2, or a later developed video format (e.g. Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Su further discloses further comprising storing the output video in a network accessible storage for streaming (e.g. para [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Su further discloses wherein the computer instructions for transcoding an input video from a first format to an output video in a desired format that when executed on one or more computer processors performs the step of analyzing the temporary output video to extract encoding statistics further obtains metrics for the temporary output video (e.g. para [0089]).
Regarding claim 13, Su further discloses wherein the determining optimized encoding parameters is based on the metrics for the temporary output video (e.g. para [0115, 0126-0127]).
Regarding claim 14, Su further discloses wherein the first format is JPEG 2000 (e.g. para [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Su discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the second video format is a substanitally lossless video encoding format.
However, Lawrence discloses wherein the second video format is a substanitally lossless video encoding format (e.g. para [0061-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include wherein the second video format is a substanitally lossless video encoding format of Lawrence to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Su because doing so would allow the system to partial decode, allow hardware processing, and alpha blending. (e.g. para [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Su and Lawrence disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, and Su further discloses wherein the second video format is one of H.264, H.265, HEVC, FFV1, VP9, or MPEG-2 (e.g. para [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Su further discloses wherein the desired format is one of H.265, AV1, HEVC, VP9, FFV1, MPEG-2, or a later developed video format (e.g. para [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Su further discloses wherein the computer instructions for transcoding an input video from a first format to an output video in a desired format that when executed on one or more computer processors further perform the step of storing the output video in a network-accessible storage for streaming (e.g. para [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Su further discloses where the means for analyzing the temporary output video to extract encoding statistics further comprises means for obtaining metrics for the temporary output video (e.g. para [0089]).
Regarding claim 21, Su further discloses wherein means elements are provided in a cloud-based encoding service (e.g. para [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Su nor Lawrence discloses, teaches, or suggests the combination of features presented in independent claims 1, 11 and 19 as claimed. Especially, applicant states in the Remarks page 7 that in the present application, a separately encoded intermediate video, using a fast-decode format, is decoded into the second set of video data frames that results in the output video delivered to an end-user. However, in the instant application specification Paragraph [0034], further clarifies the definition of “fast decode format” of the invention as “This encoding creates a lossless (or nearly lossless) representation of the original input. For example, a "fast decode" video format can be used as the intermediate video format to speed up the transcoding process. The decoding of the lossless or near lossless "fast decode" format is simpler, less time consuming, or otherwise less computationally expensive than the decoding of the original input video format. For example, in one embodiment, the original input video is formatted as JPEG 2000 and the intermediate "fast code" format is H.264. In such an embodiment, the total decoding complexity can be reduced by up to 50%. The improved transcoding approach according to this embodiment can be applied to any source video material encoded in a "complex decode format," that is, a format which requires more computing time to decode twice than decoding once and encoding and decoding using a "fast decode" format. For example, JPEG 2000 and ProRes are examples of complex formats when compared to the use of H.264 or H.265 as a fast decode intermediate format.” And Su (Paragraph [0041, 0042]) discloses “[0041] In some embodiments, the first-stage transcoding systems transcode image content decoded from a mezzanine package into an intermediate bitstream comprising BL and EL signals. The second-stage transcoding systems receives and de-multiplexes the intermediate bitstream back into the BL and EL signals.
[0042] In some embodiments, as the base layer is already encoded in the first pass, the second-stage transcoding systems directly transcode the BL signal (e.g., HEVC, AVC, VP9, etc.) in the intermediate bitstream into a BL signal in a targeted transmission package.” Su also discloses how to transcode into a different format, such as in Paragraph [0056], “[0056] In some embodiments, the mezzanine decoder is configured to process the mezzanine package (e.g., in compliance with a JPEG 2000 standard, etc.) into an EDR signal comprising 12-bit perceptual quantization (PQ) code words in 16-bit TIFF format; extract color management (e.g., color grading, color timing, etc.) metadata (CM metadata) and display management metadata (DM metadata) from the mezzanine package; etc.” In addition, Lawrence discloses wherein the second video format is fast-decode format (e.g. para [0061]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include wherein the second video format is fast-decode format of Lawrence to the method of Su because doing so would allow the system to partial decode, allow hardware processing, and alpha blending. (e.g. para [0062-0063]).
Applicant also asserts at page 7 of the Remarks that “fast decode is not necessary or essential to the Su configuration or system (Su is a later application and fast decode would have been known to Su)”; However, to clarify the argument, Su’s publication date is 12/17/2015 and the instant application has Provision application dated 07/27/2020, Su is a prior art to the application.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (US 2018/0220175 A1), discloses transcoding with multi-format codec;
Metoevi (US 2013/0279592 A1), discloses efficient video transcoding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YULIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1043. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM - 6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YULIN SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485