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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 04/24/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 15-17 and 20-26 are pending.
The application filed on 03/15/2024 is a CON of PCT/CN2021/119379 filed on 09/18/2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12 and 25 refer to "A video transmission method”, Claims 13, 15-17, 21, 26 refer to " A video transmission method”, and, Claim 20, 22-24 refers to "An electronic device”. Claims 13, 15-17, 20-24, 26 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-12 and 25, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-12 and 25, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system. Examiner request to keep the scope of the independent claims similar to advance the prosecution.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanda (US 20110154144 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190159038 A1), hereinafter Xu, further in view of Cipolli et al. (US 20070206673 A1), hereinafter Cipoll, further in view of Nakagawa (US 20100174953 A1) further in view of Buttimer et al. (US 20080247463 A1), hereinafter Buttimer.
Regarding claim 1, Nanda discloses a video transmission method, wherein the method comprises (Fig. 4): generating, by an encoder, a video frame, wherein the video frame comprises image blocks ([0071], [0051]), and each of the image blocks is sent; and sending, by the encoder, wherein the frame comprises a request for feedback information from the decoder (Fig. 18).
Nanda discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Nanda does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section sent within a respective specified period; a target frame to a decoder at an end moment of a corresponding specified period.
However, Xu from the same or similar endeavor teaches a respective specified period; a target frame to a decoder at an end moment of a corresponding specified period ([0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nanda to incorporate the teachings of Xu to improve link restoration accuracy (Xu, [0012]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Nanda in view of Xu discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section a plurality of image blocks; plurality of image blocks is sent.
However, Cipolli from the same or similar endeavor teaches a plurality of image blocks; plurality of image blocks is sent ([0067]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nanda in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Cipolli resilient transmission (Cipolli, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section in response to a first image block in the plurality of image blocks not being completely sent.
However, Nakagawa from the same or similar endeavor teaches in response to a first image block in the plurality of image blocks not being completely sent ([0045], Fig. 3, Fig. 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli to incorporate the teachings of Nakagawa to improve transmission and reception (Nakagawa, [0036]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited wherein the target frame is a synchronization frame that indicates the decoder to perform synchronization processing on the video frame received by the decoder, and to send feedback information that represents a synchronization status of the decoder for the received video frame.
However, Buttimer from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the target frame is a synchronization frame that indicates the decoder to perform synchronization processing on the video frame received by the decoder, and to send feedback information that represents a synchronization status of the decoder for the received video frame ([0004], Synchronization by the I-Frame, in view of Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa, Cipolli discloses the I-Frame but Buttimer explains the synchronization by the I-Frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Buttimer to successfully manage reference frames (Buttimer, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, (Canceled).
Regarding claim 3, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the target frame is a medium access control (MAC) frame (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0078], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0215]).
Regarding claim 4, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 1, (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0078], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0215]).
Regarding claim 5, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0078], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0082]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 6, (Canceled).
Regarding claim 7, (Canceled).
Regarding claim 8, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein when the target frame is a synchronization frame, a data part of the MAC frame carries indication information, and the indication information indicates the decoder to perform synchronization processing on the received video frame (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0078], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0082]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein when the encoder does not receive the feedback information, the method further comprises: resending, by the encoder, the target frame to the decoder (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0078], [0083], [0087], [0095]-[0097], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0082]-[0085], [0099]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 10, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein a rate at which the encoder resends the target frame to the decoder is less than a first rate, and the first rate is a rate at which the encoder sends the target frame to the decoder in response to the first image block not being completely sent at the end moment of the corresponding specified period (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0077]-[0079], [0083], [0087], [0095]-[0097], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0082]-[0085], [0099]-[0102], [0189], [0197], Nakagawa, [0045], Fig. 3, Fig. 5-8).
Regarding claim 11, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a rate at which the encoder sends the target frame to the decoder is set to at least one of the following: an expected rate collected by a system, a rate at which the target frame is successfully sent recently, or a mapping value of the rate at which the target frame is successfully sent recently (Nanda, Fig. 4, Fig. 18, [0059], [0077]-[0079], [0083], [0087], [0095]-[0097], Xu, [0151], Cipolli, [0007]-[0008], [0082]-[0085], [0099]-[0102], [0189], [0197]).
Regarding claim 12, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the image block comprises a tile or a slice segment (Cipolli, [0159], [0194]-[0195]).
Regarding claim 25, Nanda in view of Xu further in view of Cipolli further in view of Nakagawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the synchronization frame carries a status of an image block of the plurality of image blocks in the video frame that has been sent (Buttimer, [0004], Synchronization by the I-Frame, the frame has the status of the image blocks, the claim is too broad).
Regarding claim 13, 15-17, 20-24, 26, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights