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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Since claims 11-20 have been canceled, New claim “11.” should have been assigned “21.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0271525 A1 (“Hendry”) in view of US 2017/0324967 A1 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Hendry discloses a system for predictive coding, wherein the system comprises a computing device (e.g. see video encoder such as shown in Fig. 2A) configured to: receive an input video (e.g. see video data such as shown in Fig. 2A); produce an encoded video as a function of an encoding process (e.g. see bitstream such as shown in Fig. 2A), the encoded video including at least one Supplementary Enhancement Information (SEI) message (e.g. see SEI message, paragraph [0142]).
Although Hendry discloses the encoded video including at least one Supplementary Enhancement Information (SEI) message, it is noted Hendry differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose signaling a quality impact value and frame drop indicator. Yang however, teaches determine a quality impact value as a function of the input video (e.g. see determining droppable result from the droppable frame reference information, i.e. whether the frame can be dropped without affecting the decoding of the other frames or not, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]; thus, remaining frames that are not dropped are successfully decoded and timely displayed, paragraph [0015]), wherein determining the quality impact value further comprises: identifying a frame drop indicator representing information necessary to signal frame dropping as a function of the input video (e.g. see droppable frame reference information, for example, temporal ID of the frames to indicate frame level, paragraphs [0032]-[0033]; also see reference frame indicator for indicating whether these frames are non-reference frames, paragraphs [0039], [0046]); and determining the quality impact value as a function of the frame drop indicator (e.g. see determining droppable result from the droppable frame reference information (e.g. highest level frames based on temporal ID are droppable and lowest level frames are not, as shown in Figs. 7a-7c), paragraphs [0034]-[0038]); and produce an encoded video as a function of the quality impact value and signaling the quality impact value and frame drop indicator (e.g. see header of encoded frames (which is signaled to the decoder), paragraph [0018], records information associated with the reference relationships reflected in the droppable frame reference information such as temporal ID, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0039], [0046], from which the droppable result is determined from, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]; thus, it would be obvious to include such information in the SEI as disclosed by Hendry).
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 Hendry and Yang before him/her, to modify the video coder/decoder including SEI of Hendry with the teachings of Yang in order to alleviate the effect that the decoding performance stress has on playback smoothness.
Regarding claim 3, Hendry in view of Yang further teaches wherein identifying a frame drop indicator further comprises information indicating a display order (Yang: e.g. see display sequence in Figs. 7a-7c, paragraph [0046]) and frame dependency (Yang: e.g. see droppable frame reference information, for example, temporal ID of the frames to indicate frame level, e.g. shown in Figs. 7a-7c, paragraphs [0032]-[0033]; also see reference frame indicator for indicating whether these frames are non-reference frames, , paragraphs [0039], [0046]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 5, although Hendry discloses further comprises: performing a predictive encoding protocol (e.g. see video encoder such as shown in Fig. 2A and see SEI message, paragraph [0142]), it is noted Hendry differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein identifying the frame drop indicator further comprises: identifying the frame drop indicator as a function of the predictive encoding protocol. Yang however, teaches wherein identifying the frame drop indicator further comprises: identifying the frame drop indicator as a function of the predictive encoding protocol (e.g. see header of encoded frames (which is signaled to the decoder), paragraph [0018], records information associated with the reference relationships reflected in the droppable frame reference information such as temporal ID, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0039], [0046], from which the droppable result is determined from, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]; thus, it would be obvious to include such information in the SEI as disclosed by Hendry). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 7, although Hendry discloses encoding the input video (e.g. see video encoder such as shown in Fig. 2A and see SEI message, paragraph [0142]), it is noted Hendry differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein encoding the input video further comprises initiating a frame drop protocol. Yang however, teaches wherein encoding the input video further comprises initiating a frame drop protocol (e.g. see header of encoded frames (which is signaled to the decoder), paragraph [0018], records information associated with the reference relationships reflected in the droppable frame reference information such as temporal ID, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0039], [0046], from which the droppable result is determined from, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]; thus, it would be obvious to include such information in the SEI as disclosed by Hendry; based on the droppable result, a frame is decided whether to be dropped or not). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 8, Hendry in view of Yang further teaches wherein initiating the frame drop protocol further comprises: determining a reduced quality as a function of the quality impact value (Yang: e.g. see determining droppable result from the droppable frame reference information, i.e. whether the frame can be dropped without affecting the decoding of the other frames or not, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]; thus, remaining frames that are not dropped are successfully decoded and timely displayed, paragraph [0015]); and initiating the frame drop protocol as a function of the reduced quality (Yang: e.g. see header of encoded frames (which is signaled to the decoder), paragraph [0018], records information associated with the reference relationships reflected in the droppable frame reference information such as temporal ID, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0039], [0046], from which the droppable result is determined from, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]; thus, it would be obvious to include such information in the SEI as disclosed by Hendry; if frame(s) is/are decided to be dropped, then the remaining frames, although successfully decoded and timely displayed, will have reduced quality since not all frames are displayed). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry in view of Yang in further view of US 2017/0347159 A1 (“Baik”).
Regarding claim 2, although Hendry in view of Yang teaches the quality impact value, it is noted Hendry differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose further comprising determining a mean opinion score, wherein the quality impact value is determined at least in part as a function of the mean opinion score. Baik however, teaches further comprising determining a mean opinion score, wherein the quality impact value is determined at least in part as a function of the mean opinion score. (e.g. see dropping frames based on mean opinion score, paragraph [0015]).
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 Hendry, Yang and Baik before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Baik into the video coder/decoder including SEI of Hendry as modified by Yang in order to adjust the frame rate of a video in consideration of spatial or temporal video quality at a receiver such as both objective video quality metric and a subjective video quality metric.
Regarding claim 11, Hendry in view of Baik further teaches wherein the quality impact value is at least in part a function of a change in the mean opinion score (e.g. see dropping frames based on mean opinion score, paragraph [0015]; thus, a change in the mean opinion score would change the dropping of frames). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 2 applies here.
Claim(s) 6, 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry in view of Yang in further view of US 2012/0121014 A1 (“Rusert”).
Regarding claim 6, although Hendry in view of Yang further teaches identifying the frame drop indicator (Yang: e.g. see droppable frame reference information, for example, temporal ID of the frames to indicate frame level, paragraphs [0032]-[0033]; also see reference frame indicator for indicating whether these frames are non-reference frames, paragraphs [0039], [0046]), it is noted Hendry differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein identifying the frame drop indicator further comprises: determining a transport packet as a function of the input video; and identifying the frame drop indicator as a function of the transport packet.
Rusert however, teaches wherein identifying the frame drop indicator further comprises: determining a transport packet as a function of the input video (e.g. see detect data packet losses in the media data S11, paragraphs [0037]-[0038]); and identifying the frame drop indicator as a function of the transport packet (e.g. see decision on dropping data frames as a function of a threshold value in S13, paragraphs [0033], [0048]-[0050], includes the detect data packet losses consideration in S11, paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
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 Hendry, Yang and Rusert before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Rusert into the video coder/decoder including SEI of Hendry as modified by Yang in order to increase the experience level of the presented quality and/or efficient use of network resources.
Regarding claim 9, although Hendry in view of Yang further teaches initiating the frame drop protocol, it is noted Hendry differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein initiating the frame drop protocol further comprises performing an error concealment. Rusert however, teaches wherein initiating the frame drop protocol further comprises performing an error concealment (e.g. see error concealment in S16 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0058]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim 10, Hendry in view of Rusert further teaches wherein performing the error concealment further comprises: determining a proximal frame (Rusert: e.g. see last successful received video frame, paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0058]); and performing the error concealment as a function of the proximal frame (Rusert: e.g. see simple concealment technique is a repetition of the last successful received video frame before the lost frame, paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0058]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 6 applies here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0238022 A1, Kottana et al., Quality aware error concealment method for video and game streaming and a viewing device employing the same
US 6385345 B1, Ribas-Corbera et al., Method and apparatus for selecting image data to skip when encoding digital video
US 2020/0221147 A1, Batra et al., Intelligent video frame dropping for improved digital video flow control over a crowded wireless network
US 2018/0367817 A1, Ryu et al., Frame prioritization based on prediction information
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619