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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0348665 to Bhanushali et al.
As per claim 1, Bhanushali et al discloses a method for image compression, comprising: dividing an image into at least a first region and a second region [0032], wherein the first region and the second region comprise irregular shaped regions see Fig. 6 and pedestrian 510 and cars 530A-C; selecting a first compression technique to be applied to the first region and a second compression technique to be applied to the second region, the first compression technique being different than the second compression technique; and compressing the first region using the first compression technique and the second region using the second compression technique [0031].
As per claim 2, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dividing the image comprises identifying a contour of one or more features in the image (contour of pedestrians and cars), wherein the first region comprises a region inside the contour, and wherein the second region comprises a region outside the contour, see Fig. 6.
As per claim 3, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dividing the image comprises identifying contours to represent one or more features in the image, wherein the first region is represented by an intersection of one set of the contours and the second region is represented by an intersection of another set of the contours, see Fig. 6.
As per claim 4, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the image is one of multiple images of a video [0001]; compressing the first region using the first compression technique comprises using a compressor associated with a first compression-decompression (CODEC) to compress the first region of the video; and compressing the second region using the second compression technique comprises using a compressor associated with a second CODEC to compress the second region of the video, the first CODEC being different than the second CODEC [0081] and [0031].
As per claim 5, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the image is one of multiple images of a video; compressing the first region using the first compression technique comprises using a first compression configuration via a CODEC to compress the first region of the video; and compressing the second region using the second compression technique comprises using a second compression configuration via the CODEC to compress the second region of the video [0031].
As per claim 6, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first compression technique is associated with a first constant rate factor (CRF), wherein the second compression technique is associated with a second CRF, the first CRF being different than the second CRF (see [0081] ”preconfigured values”).
As per claim 7, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first region is associated with a foreground of the image, wherein the second region is associated with a background of the image, and wherein the compression of the foreground is less lossy than the compression of the background, see Fig 6.
As per claim 8, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image is divided based on contour detection of one or more objects in the image [0032].
As per claim 11, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image is divided based on data associated with a user (“user” herein is defined as the operator of the remote vehicle [0066]).
As per claim 12, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image is divided using a trained machine learning model [0073].
As per claim 13, Bhanushali et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the compressed first region and the compressed second region, see [0081] and inherent buffers (memory) used to buffer the video stream (“quality of the connection to the remote computer system” and “measured latency”).
Claims 14-18, 20 are rejected, mutatis mutandis, for reasoning similar to above claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 respectively. In addition, as Bhanushali et al discloses compression of multiple areas in a video at different rates of compression, Bhanushali et al similarly discloses the decompression of the multiple areas of the video stream that were compressed at different rates, see abstract and [0031] and [0059].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhanushali et al in view of “HEVC-Based Video Coding with Lossless Region of Interest for Tele-Medicine Applications” by Chen et al, hereinafter referred to as “Chen et al.”
As per claim 9, Bhanushali et al fails to disclose streaming the video using a first video stream including the first region as compressed using the first compression technique and a second video stream including the second region as compressed using the second compression technique, the first video stream being separate from the second video stream.
However, in the same field of endeavor (compressing video at different rates depending on the ROI), Chen et al teaches in the abstract a two-layered design for the compression of the video by having a base layer of the video compressed at a lossy mode, and an enhanced layer encoded at a lossless mode, see also paragraph 5 of the portion “I. Introduction”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separated the video of Bhanushali et al into two separate streams to be later combined at the encoder side as taught by Chen et al as doing so would provide for a bit-rate reduction (3.15%), thus enhancing the sending/receiving of the video over limited-bandwidth channels of communication.
Claim 19 is rejected, mutatis mutandis, for reasoning similar to claim 9 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhanushali et al in view of “Medical Image Compression Based on Regions of Interest, with Application to Colon CT Images” by Gokturk et al, hereinafter referred to as “Gokturk et al.”
As per claim 10, Bhanushali et al fails to disclose the image is divided using a thresholding technique. Bhanushali et al describes various techniques for segmenting out the ROI at [0073] and [0074] but fails to teach thresholding as one of the segmenting techniques.
On the other hand, Gokturk et al teaches compressing ROI’s at different compression rates from the background and uses thresholding to segment the ROI from the background, see portion “A. Segmentation of ROI” and “air is separated away from the tissue by intensity thresholding”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the thresholding segmentation technique taught by Gokturk et al as a method of segmenting out the ROI in Bhanushali et al as doing so would have provided Bhanushali et al with a viable alternative the segmentation techniques contemplated. Thresholding is a well-known segmentation technique that requires very little computational resources yet provides accurate segmentation of the image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0283804, US 2004/0179742, and US Pat 5686961 all disclose imaging methods that segment an image into regions of interest (ROI) and background regions. After segmenting, the ROI region receives less compression (lossless) as compared to the background which is compressed at a greater rate, and normally is lossy. The general state of the art recognizes that various regions of an image or video frame can be compressed differently depending on the particular level of image detail needed upon decoding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672