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 5/15/26 regarding application 18/620617 that was initially filed on 3/28/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/15/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the control strength parameter,” but the parameter does not appear earlier. For the purpose of prosecution, it is interpreted to mean “a control strength parameter.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9 - 11, 13, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thirumalai et al., US 2017/0280139 A1 (hereinafter Thirumalai).
As for claim 1, Thirumalai discloses a method comprising: modifying an initial quantization parameter ([0164], e.g., default maximum QP) for a video block ([0164], e.g., blocks) by an adjustment ([0165], e.g., adjust) to obtain a final quantization parameter ([0166], e.g., determined maximum QP value) for the video block, wherein the adjustment ([0165], e.g., adjust) comprises adjusting an amount ([0166], e.g., offset) by which rate control ([0166], e.g., rate controller) is applied to the initial quantization parameter ([0164], e.g., default maximum QP) to obtain the final quantization parameter ([0166], e.g., determined maximum QP value), and wherein adjusting the amount is based on a budget ([0166], e.g., buffer fullness) of data available to the frame and on an influence ([0166], e.g., different offset values, note the different candidate offset values have different influence) of the rate control on the video block, and wherein the initial quantization parameter is based on content ([0165], e.g., based only upon source bit depth) of the video block and not on rate control; and encoding ([0166], e.g., encoder) the block based on the rate control strength adjusted quantization parameter.
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Thirumalai further discloses the rate control strength parameter is received from an application ([0166], e.g., different offset values, note the application that provides the values) or a device driver.
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Thirumalai further discloses modifying the rate control adjustment is performed based on a block rate control threshold ([0166], e.g., threshold values) which is based on amount of bits ([0166], e.g., buffer fullness) afforded to the frame and on a rate control strength ([0166], e.g., different offset values, note the different candidate offset values have different influence) for the block.
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 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 13, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 4, 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.
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 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.
2. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumalai 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 does not explicitly disclose, but Clatworthy teaches accepting the rate control strength 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 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.
3. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumalai 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 does not explicitly disclose, 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 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 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims 1, 10, and 19 include the features of the allowed claim 4, but the amended feature and the claim 4 are different. For example, claim 4 has a threshold, but the claim 1 does not have the threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 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
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
Prosecution Insights