DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. No amendments have been made. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific definition of “similar”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Furthermore, the term “similar” is still considered to be a relative term, and there is no requisite degree of weight values or anything to further clarify its scope to render it not indefinite. Therefore, the 112 rejection on the basis of the term “similar” is upheld.
Applicant argues that Wang et al. fails to disclose “a pre-encoder to generate one or more values associated with an similar predictions persisting between frames from a received plurality of frames, the similar predictions caused by one or more encoding decisions asserted to the frames”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 13, Wang et al. teaches “The method includes the step of calculating an average channel distortion, for macroblocks of the current video image that are lost and concealed using a motion-compensated temporal error concealment method, as a sum of an average concealment distortion and a propagated distortion from a previous video image. The propagated distortion is calculated as an average channel distortion in the previous video image multiplied by a scaling factor”. In Paragraph 41, it teaches “One concern addressed by the present invention is the progression of the channel distortion in successive P-frames, within each a macroblock may be coded in either inter- or intra-mode. The intra-mode is used either because it takes fewer bits, or for error-resilience purposes. The percentage of macroblocks that are coded in the intra-mode in frame n is denoted by .beta..sub.n.” In Paragraph 42, it teaches “It is presumed that if a macroblock is lost in frame n, the macroblock will be concealed using motion-compensated temporal concealment, with an average distortion D.sub.L,n. If a macroblock is received, depending on its coding mode, it could still have channel distortion due to errors in previous frames or pixels, and the corresponding distortion is denoted by D.sub.IR,n and D.sub.PR,n, respectively. The average channel distortion for frame n is: D.sub.c,n=(1-P)(.beta..sub.nD.sub.IR,n+(1-.beta..sub.n)D.sub.PR,n)+PD.sub- .L,n (2)” In Paragraph 85, Wang et al. teaches “For a given packet loss rate P, the channel simulator 330 will corrupt the packetized stream so that on average P percentage of packets will be dropped randomly. The video decoder 350 will depacketize the corrupted packet stream and generate the decoded video frames [tilde over (f)].sub.n.sup.i from the corrupted bit stream, by employing a chosen error concealment method that implements temporal error concealment with or without motion compensation. By comparing the decoded frames from video decoder 320 and video decoder 350, the channel distortion data collector 340 computes the average channel distortion in each frame for each particular channel simulation using equation (1). By running the channel simulator 330 and the decoder 350 many times, and averaging the measured channel distortions for the same frame n, the channel distortion data collector 340 determines D.sub.c,n, n=1, 2, . . . , N-1.” In Paragraph 86, Wang et al. teaches “For the given sequence and the encoding parameters, the concealment distortion estimator 360 computes the concealment distortion D.sub.ECI and D.sub.ECP,n. The operation of the concealment distortion estimator 360 is further described herein above.” The above discussion is considered to teach the claim limitations as filed. The temporal error concealment technique describes errors persisting between frames, and the encoding decisions and predictions being similar as they are made previously to the same issues that are persisting between frames, thus given the broad, and undefined nature of the claim language, the persisting error concealment through frames would necessarily be “similar” if the decisions are being made based on the same error’s persistence.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “similar predictions” in claims 1-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant is required to amend the claim language to better claim what they regard as their invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20080089414 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. teaches an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a pre-encoder to generate one or more values associated with similar predictions persisting between frames from a received plurality of frames, the similar predictions caused by one or more encoding decisions asserted to the frames (Paragraphs 41-42; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98); 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-encoder (Paragraph 3; Paragraph 34-35).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, 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. teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the pre-encoder determines an estimated weighting representing, in part, the similar predictions persisting between the frames (Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the encoder selects a mode for the encoding of the frames based at least on estimated weighting (Paragraph 13; Paragraphs 34-35; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, 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. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, 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. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more values associated with the similar predictions is based in part on an amount of data 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. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a graphics processing unit (GPU) for comprising the pre-encoder and the encoder; and a memory array within the GPU storing the one or more values (Paragraphs 30-31; Paragraph 101).
Claims 9-15 have limitations similar to those rejected in claims 1-7 above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above, Wang et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 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).
Method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a feature that is associated with the similar predictions 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. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a feature that is associated with the similar predictions 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. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a feature that is associated with the similar predictions 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 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; Paragraph 53; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraph 98).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang et al. teaches 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
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 extension fee 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 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