DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9-19 are amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20080089414 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20050185714 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. teaches an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a pre-estimator to generate one or more values associated with similar prediction behavior characterized by at least an estimated weight persisting between frames from a received plurality of frames, the similar prediction behavior caused by one or more encoding decisions asserted to the frames (Paragraphs 41-47; Paragraph 55; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98; Claim 6); and
an encoder to encode the frames using a mode for the encoding based in part on the one or more values generated by the pre-estimator (Paragraph 3; Paragraph 34-35).
However, Wang et al. does not explicitly teach a pre-encoder.
Lin et al. teaches a pre-encoder to generate one or more values associated with similar prediction behavior characterized by at least an estimated weight persisting between frames; an encoder to encode the frames using a mode for the encoding based in part on the one or more values generated by the pre-encoder (Paragraphs 46-53; Paragraphs 60-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the encoding apparatus of Wang et al. to include a pre-encoder in order to achieve better tradeoff in terms of coding efficiency and error robustness (See Lin et al. Paragraph 16).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the pre-encoder pre-encodes the frames and provides the one or more values for the one or more encoding decisions between a reference frame in the received plurality of frames and one or more subsequent frames (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 2, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the pre-encoder determines the estimated weight representing extra distortion persisting between the frames (Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 41-47; Paragraph 55; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98; Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 3, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the encoder selects a mode for the encoding of the frames based at least on estimated weight (Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the pre-encoder performs approximated motion estimation as part of a pre-encoding process for the frames from the received plurality of frames (Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the pre-encoder performs pre-encoding an approximated psychovisual optimization as part of a pre-encoding process for the frames from the received plurality of frames (Paragraph 3; Paragraphs 7-8; Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the one or more values associated with the similar prediction behavior is based in part on an amount of data, represented by the estimated weight, from a reference frame of the plurality of frames used to predict one or more subsequent frames of the plurality of frames (Paragraph 3; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a graphics processing unit (GPU) for comprising the pre-estimator and the encoder; and a memory array within the GPU storing the one or more values (Paragraphs 30-31; Paragraph 101).
However, Wang et al. does not explicitly teach a pre-encoder.
Lin et al. teaches a pre-encoder (Paragraphs 46-53; Paragraphs 60-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the encoding apparatus of Wang et al. to include a pre-encoder in order to achieve better tradeoff in terms of coding efficiency and error robustness (See Lin et al. Paragraph 16).
Claims 9-15 have limitations similar to those rejected in claims 1-7 above, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above, Wang et al. further teaches a computing device comprising memory including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to operate (Paragraphs 30-31; Paragraph 101).
However, Wang et al. does not explicitly teach a pre-encoder.
Lin et al. teaches a pre-encoder (Paragraphs 46-53; Paragraphs 60-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the encoding apparatus of Wang et al. to include a pre-encoder in order to achieve better tradeoff in terms of coding efficiency and error robustness (See Lin et al. Paragraph 16).
Method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a feature that is associated with the similar prediction behavior in a future macroblock being an exact copy of a reference macroblock of the received plurality of frames; and determining at least a first value associated with the feature to be included in the one or more values (Paragraph 3; Paragraphs 7-8; Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraph 53; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a feature that is associated with the similar prediction behavior and that comprises no data from a reference macroblock being used in any future frames of the plurality of frames; and determining at least a first value associated with the feature to be included in the one or more values (Paragraph 3; Paragraphs 7-8; Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraph 53; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a feature that is associated with the similar prediction behavior and that comprises a reference macroblock being available in at least one future frame of the received plurality of frames; and determining at least a value associated with a proportion to an amount of data, represented by the estimated weight, from the reference macroblock that is used in the at least one macroblock of the at least one future frame (Paragraph 3; Paragraphs 7-8; Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraphs 41-47; Paragraphs 53-55; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98; Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang et al. and Lin et al. teach the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising one or more of: causing a modification of an encoding cost calculation based at least in part on the one or more values; or causing the pre-encoding for a number of frame periods prior to the encoding (Paragraph 3; Paragraphs 7-8; Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraph 53; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights