DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
This Office Action responds to reply filed on 9/8/26 regarding application 18/620617 that was initially filed on 3/28/24. Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1, 2, 9 - 11, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumalai et al., US 2017/0280139 A1 (hereinafter Thirumalai) in view of Prieto et al., US 2007/0280349 A1 (hereinafter Prieto).
As for claim 1, Thirumalai discloses a method comprising: modifying an initial quantization parameter ([0165], e.g., maximum QP value based upon source bit depth) for a video block ([0164], e.g., blocks) by an adjustment ([0165], e.g., then based upon compressed bitrate) to obtain a final quantization parameter ([0165], e.g., then based upon compressed bitrate, note the output) for the video block, and wherein the initial quantization parameter ([0165], e.g., maximum QP value based upon source bit depth) is based on content of the video block ([0165], e.g., based only upon source bit depth) and not on rate control; and encoding ([0166], e.g., encoder) the block based on the adjusted quantization parameter.
Thirumalai does not explicitly disclose, but Prieto teaches wherein the adjustment to the initial quantization parameter comprises an output ([0019], e.g., QP value) of a rate control operation ([0019], e.g., rate control logic 111), scaled ([0019], e.g., scaling) by a rate control adjustment parameter ([0019], e.g., QP offset) set by an application or driver ([0019], e.g., QP scaling logic).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Thirumalai and Prieto before him/her to modify the apparatus and methods for adaptive calculation of quantization parameters in display stream compression of Thirumalai with the teaching of scalable rate control system for a video encoder of Prieto with a motivation to provide an efficient rate controller which is capable of generating a quality image in a heterogeneous and seamless environment in which devices with various processing capabilities demand scalable bit rates, image resolutions, and frame rates as taught by Prieto ([0006]) by using the QP scaling method.
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Thirumalai does not explicitly teach, but Prieto teaches the rate control adjustment parameter received from the application or a device driver ([0019], e.g., QP scaling logic).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Thirumalai and Prieto before him/her to modify the apparatus and methods for adaptive calculation of quantization parameters in display stream compression of Thirumalai with the teaching of scalable rate control system for a video encoder of Prieto with a motivation to provide an efficient rate controller which is capable of generating a quality image in a heterogeneous and seamless environment in which devices with various processing capabilities demand scalable bit rates, image resolutions, and frame rates as taught by Prieto ([0006]) by using the QP scaling method.
As for claim 9, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Thirumalai further discloses repeating ([0167], e.g., repeat) the encoding for each block ([0164], e.g., blocks) of a frame ([0052], e.g., picture).
As for claim 10, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 11, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 2, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 18, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 9, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 19, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 20, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of the method of claim 2, and is similarly analyzed.
2. Claims 3, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumalai in view of Prieto, and further in view of Clatworthy et al., US 2007/0147654 A1 (hereinafter Clatworthy).
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 2.
Thirumalai as modified by Prieto does not explicitly teach, but Clatworthy teaches accepting the rate control adjustment parameter via a user interface of the application ([0039], e.g., user interface) or device driver.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Thirumalai, Prieto, and Clatworthy before him/her to modify the apparatus and methods for adaptive calculation of quantization parameters in display stream compression of Thirumalai with the teaching of system and method for translating text to images of Clatworthy with a motivation to allow the user input parameters to control the operation of the system by using the graphic user interface.
As for claim 12, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 3, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 21, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of the method of claim 3, and is similarly analyzed.
3. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumalai in view of Prieto, and further in view of Chang, US 2005/0008075 A1 (hereinafter Chang).
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Thirumalai as modified by Prieto does not explicitly teach, but Chang teaches the rate control comprises adjusting a quantization parameter for the block of the video based on a difference between an estimated amount of data consumed by previous blocks of a frame of the block and an amount of data actually consumed by the previous blocks ([0032], e.g., difference between the actually used bits and the target bit budget and feedback and [0033], e.g., quantizer).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Thirumalai, Prieto, and Chang before him/her to modify the apparatus and methods for adaptive calculation of quantization parameters in display stream compression of Thirumalai with the teaching of rate control method with region of interesting support of Chang with a motivation to encode each block with a suitable quantizer scale so as to control the actually used bits closed to the target bit budget and control the quality of each block as taught by Chang ([0026]) by using the feedback mechanism.
As for claim 17, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 8, and is similarly analyzed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 9/8/26, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the citations being used in the current rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 14-16, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
Conclusion
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 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 JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
