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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-26 are pending. Claim 4 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 1/20/26, with respect to claims 1-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections of 11/10/25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 1/20/26, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of 11/10/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10, filed 1/20/26, with respect to claims 1-3 and 6-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of 11/10/25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10-13 of the remarks, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 with respect to the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 14-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, in p. 10 of the remarks, that the claim objections should be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant did not address all of the claim objections for claims 14, 15, and 22. Therefore, some of the claim objections are maintained.
Second, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant argues, in p. 14 of the remarks, that claims 14 and 15 are patentable because the Examiner did not allege that the prior art of record (i.e., Vanderhoff) discloses “dividing each of the plurality of images of the first content data into a first grid of cells wherein each cell in the first grid includes a first plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell in the first grid a first value corresponding to a first average of color values of each of the first plurality of pixels in the cell and dividing each of the plurality of images of the second content data into a second grid of cells wherein each cell in the second grid includes a second plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell in the second grid a second value corresponding to a second average of color values of each of the second plurality of pixels in the cell.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/10/25, the scaling and dividing limitations were claimed in the alternative. As a result, the Examiner selected the scaling limitation to examine. In view of the amendments, claims 14 and 15 are rejected under Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A). As shown in the rejection below, Para. 0063 of Vanderhoff teaches dividing video frames into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis comparing each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other, and achieving a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames by comparing each color component. Dividing the image frames into a grid is further evident in Fig. 10 of Vanderhoff. Vanderhoff also teaches in Para. 0064 that the detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within the video frames may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames, and if the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, at least one of video frames may include an error. Lastly, Vanderhoff teaches in Para. 0067 that the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color shifts. Kwon is combined with Vanderhoff to teach that the color values can be average color values. As shown in the rejection below, Kwon teaches, in Pg. 4 of the translation, pixels of video frame(s) and calculating an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) for each sub-region.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a plurality of images” should read –the plurality of images–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 17, “the cell” should read –the cell in the second grid–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 16, “the cell” should read –the cell in the second grid–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “corresponding portions of the first and second content data” should read –the corresponding portions of the first and second content data–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the transforming the first content data includes scaling down each of a plurality of images of the first content data to a corresponding lower resolution image.” Claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, now recites that “the transforming the first content data includes diving each of a plurality of images of the first content data into a grid of cells and wherein each cell includes a plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell a value corresponding to an average of color values of each of the plurality of pixels in the cell.” After reviewing the specification, the specification does not disclose that the transforming includes both scaling and dividing. Instead, the specification states than the transforming includes either scaling or dividing (see Paras. 0034, 0043, and 0044). The specification fails to provide a written description that shows the inventor possessed the invention as recited in claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2010/0201824 A1) in view of Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches, a method for preparing first content data comprising a first rendition of a media content asset for comparison to second content data comprising a second rendition of the media content asset, comprising the steps of (Para. 0044: methods and systems for comparing two or more media signals (i.e., video signals, audio signals) in which features are extracted from the media signals. The features are compared to determine the synchronization error between media signals. The media signals that are matched include a high-quality video of a movie and a DVD version of the movie; Paras. 0106-0121; Figs. 8 and 9; Note: the high-quality video of a movie is interpreted as a first content and the DVD version of the movie is interpreted as a second content):
comparing the first content data to the second content data to identify synchronization differences between the first and second content data, where each synchronization difference is indicated by a difference in media content between the first content data for a first time as compared to the second content data for the first time (As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Para. 0088: a synchronization error signal is output using the delay signals; Paras. 0108-0113; Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Figs. 5, 8, and 9);
when the second content data has already completed a quality control (QC) review, identifying the synchronization differences between the first and second content data as synchronization errors in the first content data (Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Para. 0088: a synchronization error signal is output using the delay signals; Paras. 0108-0113; Para. 0107: two media signals match if they represent the same content (i.e., a high-quality video of a movie and a DVD version of the same movie are said to match). Typically, a human watches the DVD to manually verify its contents; Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Fig. 1: synchronization error is determined after the delay calculation; Figs. 5, 8, and 9; Note: the examiner interprets cross-correlation as an example of QC review);
.
Wei does not expressly disclose the following limitations: and transforming the first content data in a manner configured to simplify an identification of the synchronization differences between the first and second content data, wherein the transforming the first content data includes dividing each of a plurality of images of the first content data into a grid of cells and wherein each cell includes a plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell a value corresponding to an average of color values of each of the plurality of pixels in the cell.
However, Vanderhoff teaches, and transforming the first content data in a manner configured to simplify an identification of the synchronization differences between the first and second content data (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts),
wherein the transforming the first content data includes dividing each of a plurality of images of the first content data into a grid of cells (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; As shown in Fig. 10 below, video frames 802 and 804 frames are divided into grids:
PNG
media_image1.png
571
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
and wherein each cell includes a plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell a value corresponding to an (Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine transforming content data to simplify an identification of synchronization differences, wherein the transforming the content data includes dividing each of a plurality of images into a grid of cells in which each cell includes a plurality of pixels, and assigning to each cell a value corresponding to a color value as taught by Vanderhoff with the media comparison of Wei in order to facilitate automatic, objective, and efficient analysis of video content instances (Vanderhoff, Para. 0012). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The combination of Wei and Vanderhoff does not expressly disclose the following limitation: average of color values.
However, Kwon teaches, average of color values (As shown in Pg. 4, there are pixels of a video frame and an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) is calculated for each sub-region).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color values being an average color value as taught by Kwon with the pixel color values of Vanderhoff in combination with Wei in order to detect scene change (Kwon, Abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is at least for the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), further comprising: identifying a second time in the first content data for which the media content of the first content data matches a portion of the media content of the second content data, wherein the second time is after the first time (Wei, Paras. 0022-0025: portions of the first input media signal and the second input media signal are compared/matched; Wei, Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Wei, Para. 0100: sampling of the first and second feature signals can occur at different times; Wei, Para. 0104: there is a delay signal due to different sampling times; Wei, Paras. 0108-0113; Wei, Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Wei, Para. 0126; Wei, Para. 0128: amount of delay between the two input media signals; Wei, As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Wei, Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 2.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 2 (see claim 2 above), further comprising: generating synchronization data indicating that a first portion of the first content data from a beginning of the first content data to the first time synchronizes with a first portion of the second content data from a beginning of the second content data to the first time and that a second portion of the first content data beginning at the second time synchronizes with a portion of the second content data beginning at a third time within the second content data (Wei, Paras. 0022-0025: portions of the first input media signal and the second input media signal are compared/matched; Wei, Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Wei, Para. 0100: sampling of the first and second feature signals can occur at different times; Wei, Para. 0104: there is a delay signal due to different sampling times; Wei, Paras. 0108-0113; Wei, Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Wei, Para. 0126; Wei, Para. 0128: amount of delay between the two input media signals; Wei, As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Wei, Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of audio data from the first and second content data (Wei, Para. 0050: the first and second input media signals may be audio signals; Wei, Paras. 0053-0054: audio signals are processed, and delay may be introduced so that the second signal is a delayed version. As a result, the first and second signals will not be synchronized. The synchronization module determines the difference between the delay signals; Wei, Para. 0059: characteristic features of the audio signals are determined).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), further comprising: when a first synchronization error is detected, checking a portion of the first content data after the first time to identify a time at which the first content data matches a portion of the second content data following the first time to identify a second time in the first content data at which the first synchronization error ends (Wei, Paras. 0022-0025: portions of the first input media signal and the second input media signal are compared/matched; Wei, Para. 0049: medial signals are reproduced continuously and synchronized; Wei, Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Wei, Para. 0100: sampling of the first and second feature signals can occur at different times; Wei, Para. 0104: there is a delay signal due to different sampling times; Wei, Paras. 0108-0113; Wei, Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Wei, Para. 0126; Wei, Para. 0128: amount of delay between the two input media signals; Wei, As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Wei, Figs. 5, 8, and 9) and re-synchronizing the first and second content data by comparing a portion of the first content data starting at the second time to a time in the second content data which corresponds to the first content data at the second time (Wei, Para. 0049: medial signals are reproduced continuously and synchronized; Wei, Para. 0090: synchronization error is generated periodically (i.e., not only once); Wei, Paras. 0022-0025: portions of the first input media signal and the second input media signal are compared/matched; Wei, Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Wei, Para. 0100: sampling of the first and second feature signals can occur at different times; Wei, Para. 0104: there is a delay signal due to different sampling times; Wei, Paras. 0108-0113; Wei, Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Wei, Para. 0126; Wei, Para. 0128: amount of delay between the two input media signals; Wei, As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Wei, Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the method is performed on a processor operating an automated video analysis of the first and second content data (Wei, Para. 0045: system is implemented in computer programs executed on processing devices (i.e., processors); Wei, Para. 0049: input media signals are synchronized; Wei, Para. 0050: first and second input media signals may be video signals; Wei, Para. 0076: cross-correlation module receives the extracted features and performs cross-correlation to measure the similarity of the signals; Wei, Para. 0088: a synchronization error represents the difference between delay signals).
Claims 5-6, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2010/0201824 A1) in view of Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”) and Gordon (US 2012/0114046 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the transforming the first content data includes scaling down each of a plurality of images of the first content data to a corresponding lower resolution image.
However, Gordon teaches, wherein the transforming the first content data includes scaling down each of a plurality of images of the first content data to a corresponding lower resolution image (As shown in Paras. 0014, 0017, and 0023, the frames with the larger video resolution are scaled down to match the video resolution of the smaller video resolution frames (i.e., the 1920
×
1080 frame would be downsized to a 704
×
480 frame) during synchronization).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine transforming content data by scaling down images to a lower resolution as taught by Gordon with the combined media comparison of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon in order to determine if the transcoded video is to be rejected on a quality basis (Gordon, Para. 0023). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further does not expressly disclose the following limitation: further comprising: classifying detected synchronization errors as including one of shuffled frames, missing frames, or extra frames.
However, Gordon teaches, further comprising: classifying detected synchronization errors as including one of shuffled frames, missing frames, or extra frames (Para. 0003: one of the issues that needs to be checked is the need to verify overall quality of the transcoded video file. Specifically, there is a need to check the overall quality of the transcoded video to verify that no extra video frames have been added; Para. 0004: tool in the verification process report extra black frames in the video; Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Note: the Examiner considers the extra frames limitation).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine synchronization errors including extra frames as taught by Gordon with the combined media comparison of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon in order to improve the overall quality of video verification (Gordon, Para. 0007). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon further does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) values for corresponding portions of the first and second content data.
However, Gordon teaches, wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) values for corresponding portions of the first and second content data (Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Para. 0021: quality values are obtained by computing a mean square error (MSE) and a peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) using the MSE. PSNR is an error metric used to compare image qualities of pair of frames from the source frames and transcoded frames).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine synchronization differences being based on PSNR values as taught by Gordon with the combined media comparison of Wei, Vanderhoff, and Kwon in order to improve the overall quality of video verification (Gordon, Para. 0007). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon further teaches, the method of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of the PSNR values from a video component of the corresponding portions of the first and second content data (Gordon, Para. 0005: quality of a transcoded video file is verified by comparing the transcoded video file with its original source video file; Gordon, Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Gordon, Para. 0021: quality values are obtained by computing a mean square error (MSE) and a peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) using the MSE. PSNR is an error metric used to compare image qualities of pair of video frames from the source frames and transcoded frames).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon references presented in the rejection of claim 8 apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 9 is met by Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon further teaches, the method of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), wherein a synchronization error is identified when a PSNR value for one or more frames drops below a threshold level (Gordon, Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Gordon, Para. 0021: quality values are obtained by computing a mean square error (MSE) and a peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) using the MSE. PSNR is an error metric used to compare image qualities of pair of frames from the source frames and transcoded frames. Frames, for example, with a PSNR value below 35 dB are considered to be badly transcoded and would be rejected on a quality basis).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon references presented in the rejection of claim 8 apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 12 is met by Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2010/0201824 A1) in view of Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”), Gordon (US 2012/0114046 A1), and Cheddad et al. (US 2011/0311042 A1; hereinafter “Cheddad”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 9.
The combination of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein a PSNR value for a frame drops below 30.
However, Cheddad teaches, wherein a PSNR value for a frame drops below 30 (Para. 0183: PSNR values may fall below 30 dB; Para. 0185: PSNR is calculated for images).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine PSNR value dropping below 30 as taught by Cheddad with the combined media comparison of Wei, Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon in order to indicate fairly low quality (Cheddad, Para. 0183). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 13.
Claims 14-15, 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 14, Vanderhoff teaches, a system for preparing first content data comprising a first rendition of a media content asset for comparison to second content data comprising a second rendition of the media content asset, comprising (Para. 0003: different versions of the same movie are compared (i.e., HD version and a lower-resolution version); Para. 0011: the video content analysis system may apply a morphing heuristic to the first and second set of video frames to result in the first and second sets of video frames having a common resolution. The video content analysis system then synchronizes the first and second video content):
a processor configured to (Para. 0078: a processor executes instructions to perform one or more processes; Para. 0082):
transform the first content data in a manner configured to simplify an identification of synchronization differences between the first and second content data by dividing each of a plurality of images of the first content data into a first grid of cells, wherein each cell in the first grid includes a first plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell in the first grid a first value corresponding to a first first plurality of pixels in the cell (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts; As shown in Fig. 10 below, video frames 802 and 804 frames are divided into grids:
PNG
media_image1.png
571
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
transform the second content data by dividing each of the plurality of images of the second content data into a second grid of cells, wherein each cell in the second grid includes a second plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell in the second grid a second value corresponding to a second second plurality of pixels in the cell (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts; As shown in Fig. 10, video frames 802 and 804 frames are divided into grids; Note: the Examiner interprets each frame as content data (i.e., first content data and second content data));
compare the transformed first content data to the transformed second content data to identify the synchronization differences between the first and second content data (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts);
and when the second content data has already completed a quality control (QC) review, identify the synchronization differences between the first and second content data as synchronization errors in the first content data (Para. 0011: the video content analysis system may apply a morphing heuristic to the first and second set of video frames to result in the first and second sets of video frames having a common resolution. The video content analysis system then synchronizes the first and second video content; Para. 0029: the first and second set of video frames are synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed to detect errors; Para. 0030: the error detected includes loss of audio synchronization; Paras.0067-0069; Para. 0072: a user may visually identify an overall quality of the first and second video content and identify video frames that contain errors).
Vanderhoff does not expressly disclose the following limitations: a first average of color values; a second average of color values.
However, Kwon teaches, a first average of color values (As shown in Pg. 4, there are a plurality of video frames, pixels of video frames, and an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) is calculated for each sub-region);
a second average of color values (As shown in Pg. 4, there are a plurality of video frames, pixels of video frames, and an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) is calculated for each sub-region).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color values being average color values as taught by Kwon with the pixel color values and media comparison of Vanderhoff in order to detect scene change (Kwon, Abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is at least for the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Vanderhoff teaches, a method for preparing first content data comprising a first rendition of a media content asset for comparison to second content data comprising a second rendition of the media content asset, comprising the steps of (Para. 0003: different versions of the same movie are compared (i.e., HD version and a lower-resolution version); Para. 0011: video content analysis methods and systems are described. The video content analysis system may apply a morphing heuristic to the first and second set of video frames to result in the first and second sets of video frames having a common resolution. The video content analysis system then synchronizes the first and second video content):
transforming the first content data in a manner configured to simplify an identification of synchronization differences between the first and second content data by dividing each of a plurality of images of the first content data into a first grid of cells wherein each cell in the first grid includes a first plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell in the first grid a first value corresponding to a first first plurality of pixels in the cell (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts; As shown in Fig. 10 below, video frames 802 and 804 frames are divided into grids:
PNG
media_image1.png
571
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
transforming the second content data by dividing each of the plurality of images of the second content data into a second grid of cells wherein each cell in the second grid includes a second plurality of pixels and assigning to each cell in the second grid a second value corresponding to a second second plurality of pixels in the cell (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts; As shown in Fig. 10, video frames 802 and 804 frames are divided into grids; Note: the Examiner interprets each frame as content data (i.e., first content data and second content data));
comparing the transformed first content data to the transformed second content data to identify the synchronization differences between the first and second content data (Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Para. 0063; Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts);
and when the second content data has already completed a quality control (QC) review, identifying the synchronization differences between the first and second content data as synchronization errors in the first content data (Para. 0011: the video content analysis system may apply a morphing heuristic to the first and second set of video frames to result in the first and second sets of video frames having a common resolution. The video content analysis system then synchronizes the first and second video content; Para. 0029: the first and second set of video frames are synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed to detect errors; Para. 0030: the error detected includes loss of audio synchronization; Paras.0067-0069; Para. 0072: a user may visually identify an overall quality of the first and second video content and identify video frames that contain errors).
Vanderhoff does not expressly disclose the following limitations: a first average of color values; a second average of color values.
However, Kwon teaches, a first average of color values (As shown in Pg. 4, there are a plurality of video frames, pixels of video frames, and an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) is calculated for each sub-region);
a second average of color values (As shown in Pg. 4, there are a plurality of video frames, pixels of video frames, and an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) is calculated for each sub-region).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color values being average color values as taught by Kwon with the pixel color values and media comparison of Vanderhoff in order to detect scene change (Kwon, Abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is at least for the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 15.
The combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 15 (see claim 15 above), wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of audio data from the first and second content data (Vanderhoff, Para. 0025: audio content is captured and associated with each frame; Vanderhoff, Para. 0029: the first and second set of video frames are synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed to detect errors; Vanderhoff, Para. 0030: the error detected includes loss of audio synchronization; Vanderhoff, Para. 0032; Vanderhoff, Para. 0066: audio content is compared with each video frame and if the audio content is different, it may be indicative of a loss of audio synchronization).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 15.
The combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 15 (see claim 15 above), wherein the method is performed on a processor operating an automated video analysis of the first and second content data (Vanderhoff, Para. 0011: the video content analysis system may apply a morphing heuristic to the first and second set of video frames to result in the first and second sets of video frames having a common resolution. The video content analysis system then synchronizes the first and second video content; Vanderhoff, Para. 0078: a processor executes instructions to perform one or more processes; Vanderhoff: Para. 0082; Vanderhoff, Para. 0029: the first and second set of video frames are synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed to detect errors).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 15.
The combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon further teaches, the method of claim 15 (see claim 15 above), wherein the comparing the transformed first content data to the transformed second content data comprises comparing the first and second values corresponding to the first and second average of color values to each other (Kwon: As shown in Pg. 4, there are a plurality of video frames, pixels of video frames, and an average color component (i.e., blue component, red component) is calculated for each sub-region; Kwon, Pg. 5: A difference value is calculated between characteristic values of the sub regions; Vanderhoff, Para. 0011: first and second video content is frame synchronized and a comparative analysis is performed on the frame synchronized first and second sets of video frames; Vanderhoff, Para. 0063; Vanderhoff, Para. 0063: video frames are divided into a plurality of pixels, pixel by pixel analysis may compare each color component (e.g., red, green, and blue) included within the spatially corresponding pixels with each other. By comparing each color component, a substantial number of comparison data points between temporally corresponding video frames may be achieved; Vanderhoff, Para. 0064: “The detected differences in color for each pair of corresponding pixels within video frames 802 and 804 may be used to generate a composite delta value representing an overall difference between the video frames 802 and 804. If the composite delta value is greater than a predetermined threshold, system 100 may designate at least one of video frames 802 and 804 as including an error”; Vanderhoff, Para. 0067: the comparative analysis may be used to detect errors such as color and luminance shifts).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Vanderhoff and Kwon references presented in the rejection of claim 15 apply to claim 26 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 26 is met by Vanderhoff and Kwon.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”), and further in view of Wei (US 2010/0201824 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 15.
The combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon does not expressly disclose the following limitation: further comprising: identifying a first time at which a first synchronization difference is indicated by a difference in media content between the first content data and the second content data for the first time.
However, Wei teaches, further comprising: identifying a first time at which a first synchronization difference is indicated by a difference in media content between the first content data and the second content data for the first time (As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Para. 0088: a synchronization error signal is output using the delay signals; Paras. 0108-0113; Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine identifying a time at which there is a synchronization difference between the first and second content data as taught by Wei with the combined media comparison of Vanderhoff and Kwon in order to determine the extent to which the signals are synchronized in time (Wei, Abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Wei teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 16.
The combination of Vanderhoff, Gordon, and Wei further teaches, the method of claim 16 (see claim 16 above), further comprising: identifying a second time in the first content data for which the media content of the first content data matches the media content of the second content data, wherein the second time is after the first time (Wei, Paras. 0022-0025: portions of the first input media signal and the second input media signal are compared/matched; Wei, Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Wei, Para. 0100: sampling of the first and second feature signals can occur at different times; Wei, Para. 0104: there is a delay signal due to different sampling times; Wei, Paras. 0108-0113; Wei, Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Wei, Para. 0126; Para. 0128: amount of delay between the two input media signals; Wei: As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Wei: Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Wei references presented in the rejection of claim 16 apply to claim 17 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 17 is met by Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Wei.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Wei teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 17.
The combination of Vanderhoff, Gordon, and Wei further teaches, the method of claim 17 (see claim 17 above), further comprising: generating synchronization data indicating that a first portion of the first content data from a beginning of the first content data to the first time synchronizes with a first portion of the second content data from a beginning of the second content data to the first time and that a second portion of the first content data beginning at the second time synchronizes with a portion of the second content data beginning at a third time in the second content data (Wei, Paras. 0022-0025: portions of the first input media signal and the second input media signal are compared/matched; Wei, Paras. 0081-0082: the current peak position is determined from the cross-correlation signal in which current peak position is the position where characteristic feature of the input and output media signals have the best match. A time delay is then determined based on the current peak position; Wei, Para. 0100: sampling of the first and second feature signals can occur at different times; Wei, Para. 0104: there is a delay signal due to different sampling times; Wei, Paras. 0108-0113; Wei, Para. 0116: “the current peak position is the position at which the characteristic features of two media signals (i.e. first and second input media signals) have the best match”; Wei, Para. 0126; Wei, Para. 0128: amount of delay between the two input media signals; Wei: As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0072, there are multiple samples of a first feature signal and a second feature signal (i.e., consecutive samples/times), and the second feature signal is the delayed version; Wei: Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Wei references presented in the rejection of claim 17 apply to claim 18 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 18 is met by Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Wei.
Claims 19, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”), and further in view of Gordon (US 2012/0114046 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 15.
The combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon does not expressly disclose the following limitation: further comprising: classifying detected synchronization errors as including one of shuffled frames, missing frames, or extra frames.
However, Gordon teaches, further comprising: classifying detected synchronization errors as including one of shuffled frames, missing frames, or extra frames (Para. 0003: one of the issues that needs to be checked is the need to verify overall quality of the transcoded video file. Specifically, there is a need to check the overall quality of the transcoded video to verify that no extra video frames have been added; Para. 0004: tool in the verification process report extra black frames in the video; Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Note: the Examiner considers the extra frames limitation).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine synchronization errors including extra frames as taught by Gordon with the combined media comparison of Vanderhoff and Kwon in order to improve the overall quality of video verification (Gordon, Para. 0007). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 15.
The combination of Vanderhoff and Kwon does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) values for corresponding portions of the first and second content data.
However, Gordon teaches, wherein the identification of synchronization differences is based on a comparison of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) values for corresponding portions of the first and second content data (Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Para. 0021: quality values are obtained by computing a mean square error (MSE) and a peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) using the MSE. PSNR is an error metric used to compare image qualities of pair of frames from the source frames and transcoded frames).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine synchronization differences being based on PSNR values as taught by Gordon with the combined media comparison of Vanderhoff and Kwon in order to improve the overall quality of video verification (Gordon, Para. 0007). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 21.
The combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon further teaches, the method of claim 21 (see claim 21 above), wherein the identification of the synchronization differences is based on a comparison of the PSNR values from a video component of corresponding portions of the first and second content data (Gordon, Para. 0005: quality of a transcoded video file is verified by comparing the transcoded video file with its original source video file; Gordon, Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Gordon, Para. 0021: quality values are obtained by computing a mean square error (MSE) and a peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) using the MSE. PSNR is an error metric used to compare image qualities of pair of video frames from the source frames and transcoded frames).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon references presented in the rejection of claim 21 apply to claim 22 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 22 is met by Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 22.
The combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon further teaches, the method of claim 22 (see claim 22 above), wherein a synchronization error is identified when a PSNR value for one or more frames drops below a threshold level (Gordon, Paras. 0019 and 0020: source frames and synchronized with transcoded frames; Gordon, Para. 0021: quality values are obtained by computing a mean square error (MSE) and a peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) using the MSE. PSNR is an error metric used to compare image qualities of pair of frames from the source frames and transcoded frames. Frames, for example, with a PSNR value below 35 dB are considered to be badly transcoded and would be rejected on a quality basis).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon references presented in the rejection of claim 22 apply to claim 24 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 24 is met by Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderhoff et al. (US 2012/0162505 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20120012208 A, see provided machine translation; hereinafter “Kwon”), and further in view of Gordon (US 2012/0114046 A1) and Cheddad et al. (US 2011/0311042 A1; hereinafter “Cheddad”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 24.
The combination of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the PSNR value for a frame drops below 30.
However, Cheddad teaches, wherein when the PSNR value for a frame drops below 30 (Para. 0183: PSNR values may fall below 30 dB; Para. 0185: PSNR is calculated for images).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine PSNR value dropping below 30 as taught by Cheddad with the combined media comparison of Vanderhoff, Kwon, and Gordon in order to indicate fairly low quality (Cheddad, Para. 0183). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 25.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniella M. DiGuglielmo whose telephone number is (571)272-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/Daniella M. DiGuglielmo/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights