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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-22 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection for the disputed limitations are provided based on new art Neiderauer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas (2024/0305839) in view of Neiderauer et al (2011/0164046 hereafter Neid) and Koreeda (2014/0109166)
In regard to claim 1 Clucas discloses a method for processing streamed media data, comprising:
processing encrypted media data at a first resolution received by the client system sent by a source computing system (Clucas Figs. 3-6 and par. 115 note receiving module 103 which receives an input encrypted bitstream and performs decryption to provide a decrypted encoded bitstream);
performing, by a media engine of the client system, a pipeline of integrated media-processing operations in response to the instructions (Clucas Fig. 5 and pars 127-128 note media processing pipeline shown in Fig. 5),
the media-processing operations being controlled by a local controller of the media engine (Clucas Fig. 2b and generally pars 96-101 decoder integration layer 27 which controls functions of the decoder),
the media-processing operations involving interaction with a local memory of the media engine (Clucas Fig. 5 and pars 129-133 note interactions with local unsecured and secured memory),
the media-processing operations including:
in a decrypting operation, producing decrypted media data by decrypting the encrypted media data (Clucas Figs 3-6 and par. 115 note module 103 performs decrypting the received encrypted media data);
in a decoding operation, producing decoded media data by decoding the decrypted media data (Clucas Figs. 3-6 and par. 116 note base video decoder 117 which decodes the decrypted video);
in an enhancing operation, producing enhanced media data by enhancing the decoded media data, the enhanced media data having a second resolution that is greater than the first resolution (Clucas Figs 5-6 and par. 136 note module 123 which combines a decoded base layer at a first resolution with enhancement layer data to generate output at a second, higher, resolution); and
storing the enhanced media data in the local memory for output to an output system (Clucas Figs 5-6 and par. 136 note 127, outputting the enhanced video to memory 110c).
Clucas discloses decrypting received media (Clucas Figs 3-6 note decrypt operation 103). It is noted that Clucas does not explicitly disclose receiving an instruction from a main processing system of a client system to initiate processing encrypted media data wherein the client system includes both the main processing system and the media engine. However, Neid discloses a method for processing media data including:
receiving an instruction from a main processing system of a client system to initiate processing encrypted media data (Neid Fig. 1 and par. 53 note computer system (main processing system) may instruct a discrete GPU to initiate media processing), the encrypted media being processed by a media engine that performs decryption and decoding as controlled by a local controller that operates independent of the main processing system (Neid par. 64 note discrete GPU performs decryption and decoding further note pars 44-48 GPU may drive the display independent of the computer system 100)
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating the media processor of Clucas as a discrete media engine in the client system including both a main processing system and a discrete media engine taught by Neid in order to reduce power consumption for low processing load graphics while providing a high performance media processor for high processing load graphics as suggested by Neid
Clucas and Neid disclose receiving input video (Clucas par. 54 note receiving a video stream, Neid par. 38). It is further noted that neither Clucas nor Neid explicitly disclose a source computing system providing encrypted media . It is noted that neither Clucas nor Neid explicitly disclose that input video is received from a source computing system. However Koreeda discloses a method for processing media with digital rights management (Koreeda Fig 3) including a source computing system for providing encrypted media (Koreeda par. 52 note content server 63 providing encrypted media).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating a source computing system as taught by Koreeda in order to gain the expected advantage of providing streaming video data.
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating media streaming from a source computing system with digital rights management taught by Koreeda in the invention of Clucas and Neid in order to manage copyright controls on the received content as suggested by Koreeda (Koreeda par. 59).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Koreeda further discloses verifying that a target entity has rights to consume the decrypted media data (Koreeda pars. 54 and 73 note determining whether the client has a license to view the received content).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clucas further discloses that the decoding operation includes storing the decoded media data in the local memory, and the enhancing operation data includes retrieving the decoded media data from the local memory (Clucas Figs 3-6 and par. 116 note decoding the decrypted video and storing the decoded video in memory 110 via channel 121, further note par. 136 module 123 retrieving decoded video from the memory 110 via channel 125).
In regard to claim 14 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clucas further discloses that the client system is implemented, at least in part, as a system-on-chip, and wherein the media engine is a component of the system-on-chip (Clucas Fig. 5 and par. 137 note implementing the decoder as a SoC).
In regard to claim 15 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Koreeda further discloses that the source computing system is a server system (Koreeda Fig. 2 and par 52 note content server 63).
In regard to claim 21 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Neid further discloses that upon completion of processing of the decrypted media data, informing, by the local controller, the main processing system that a processing job has been completed (Neid Fig. 4 and par 72 note the discrete GPU is used until graphics processing operations are completed then the GPU indicates to the computing system that processing is completed and it is determined whether or not to continue using the discrete GPU).
In regard to claim 22 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clucas further discloses that the decoding operation further comprises modifying the decoded video data from a first format to a second format, the second format being different than the first format (Clucas Fig. 8 and par 148 note step 805 modifying a decrypted base layer in an encoded format into a decrypted base layer in a decoded format),
wherein the enhancing operation further comprises modifying the enhanced video data from a third format to a fourth format, the fourth format being different than the third format (Clucas Fig. 7 and par. 147 note modifying an enhancement layer from a decoded format to a reconstructed output plane format).
Claims 16 and 18-19 disclose a computing system and a computer readable medium implementing process steps substantially identical to the method described in claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claims 16 and 18-19 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 16 and 18-19, Clucas further discloses a processor and a computer readable memory that is implemented as a system on chip (SoC) (Clucas pars 69-70 note LEVC decoder may be implemented as SoC in communication with secure and unsecure memory).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas in view of Neid and Koreeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka (2023/0128106).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clucas discloses an enhancing operation (Clucas (Clucas Figs 5-6 and par. 136 note enhancement module 123). It is noted that neither Clucas, Neid nor Koreeda disclose details of a machine trained model.
However, Otsuka discloses an image processing method that includes an enhancing operation that uses a machine-trained model to map the decoded media data at the first resolution to the enhanced media data at the second resolution (Otsuka Figs. 1-2 and par. 71 note super-resolution processing section which enhances video from a first resolution to a second resolution, further note pars 87-89 the super-resolution processing may use a machine implemented deep learning or machine learning model).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating a super-resolution technique as taught by Otsuka in the invention of Clucas in view of Neid in order to gain the advantage of enhancing the quality of images provided to a viewer as suggested by Otsuka (Otsuka par. 3).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clucas further discloses several operational units operating together (Clucas Fig. 5 note decrypt & demux 103, decoder 117, enhancement processing 123 and display output 131 each operate to reconstruct video). It is noted that neither Clucas, Neid nor Koreeda exclusively disclose parallel operation.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it was common and notoriously well known in the art to perform video processing operations, including enhancing and decoding operations, in parallel as disclosed by Otsuka (Otsuka Fig. 7 and pars 116-117 note various image processing operations performed in parallel).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of performing the operations of Clucas, Neid and Koreeda in parallel as suggested by Otsuka in order to reduce delay time as suggested by Otsuka (Otsuka par. 117).
Claims 8-9, 11-13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas in view of Neid and Koreeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Austerlitz et al (2008/0263621).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clucas discloses processing media including separating audio and video information (Clucas par. 113). It is noted that neither Clucas, Neid nor Koreeda disclose decrypting audio.
However, Austerlitz discloses a video processor in which media-processing operations include decrypting audio and video data and separating the decrypted media into decrypted video data and decrypted audio data (Austerlitz Fig. 1A-B and pars 88-117 note CA/DRM Unit 121 which decrypts the received compressed media stream, and provides separated audio and video data to decoder 122).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including decrypting encrypted audio and separating audio and video as taught by Austerlitz in the invention of Clucas, Neid and Koreeda in order to provide compliance with a variety of encryption protocols as suggested by Austerlitz (Austerlitz pars 88-89).
In regard to claims 9, 17 and 20 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 8, 16 and 19 above. Clucas further discloses that the decoding operation includes, in a video decoding operation, producing decoded video data by decoding the decrypted video data, and the enhancing operation includes, in a video enhancing operation, producing enhanced video data by enhancing the decoded video data (Clucas Figs 3-6 and par. 116 note decoding the decrypted encoded video data, further note Figs 5-6 and par. 123 enhancing the decoded video data).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Clucas further discloses modifying the decoded video data from a first format to a second format, the second format being different from the first format (Clucas par. 85-88 note base layer decoder converts video from H.264 encoded video into a decoded, viewable base layer).
In regard to claim 12 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Clucas further discloses modifying the enhanced video data from a first format to a second format the second format being different than the first format (Clucas par. 123 note converting the base layer video data into enhanced video data at a higher resolution).
In regard to claim 13 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Austerlitz further discloses that the decoding operation includes producing decoded audio data by decoding the decrypted audio data (Austerlitz Fig. 1B and par. 96 note decoder 122 decodes decrypted audio), and
wherein the enhancing operation includes producing enhanced audio data by enhancing the decoded audio data (Austerlitz Fig. 1B and par. 111 note display processor 124 performs audio enhancement).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas in view of Neid, Koreeda and Austerlitz as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Otsuka.
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Clucas discloses that decoding includes storing video information in a local memory (Clucas Figs 3-6 note video decoder stores video data in secure memory 110). It is noted that Clucas does not explicitly disclose dividing video into ‘tiles’ for storage.
However, Otsuka video is divided into plural tiles which are stored in a local memory after being decoded and wherein the video enhancing operation includes retrieving the plural tiles of decoded video data from the local memory (Otsuka Fig. 2 note partial image storing section 90 which stores decoded partial images, further note Fig. 7 showing partial images or ‘tiles’ into which images are divided).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of dividing the image of Clucas in view of Neid, Koreeda and Austerlitz into tiles as taught by Otsuka in order to reduce delay in display time of the image as suggested by Otsuka (Otsuka par. 117).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070098162 A1 Shin; Sung-chol
US 20070116277 A1 Ro; Yong-Man et al.
US 20110064220 A1 Chen; Xuemin et al.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481