DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240214582 A1 (hereinafter Chong)
US 20120189056 A1 (hereinafter Li)
US 20150296215 A1 (hereinafter Callahan)
US 9621926 B1 (hereinafter Lee)
US 20120033727 A1 (para 120; encoder selection based on frame type)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (except claim 20)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claims 4-5, 16-17 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 6-12, 14-15, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 1: Chong teaches 1. A system comprising: a processor [(para 74)] configured to: selectively enable a first encoder from plurality of video encoders to output a first encoded frame of a video sequence based on whether a frame type of the first encoded frame corresponds to one of at least three different frame types [(frame analysis module select one of the hardware, software or hybrid encoder based on frame type such as I, P and B and direction such as P-type /unidirectional or B-type /bidirectional {Fig.2, Fig.4 para 50-51}; B-frame is bidirectional and P-frame is unidirectional {see the arrows in Fig.3 and para 48}; frame type/directional encoding preference for each frame {para 34, 47})]: and based directional encoding of frame [(para 46, p-type and B-type)]
Obtain a second encoded frame of the video sequence from a second encoder from the plurality of video encoders [(para 50-51)] and output a hybrid bitstream that interleaves the first encoded frame with the second encoded frame into an order with other encoded frames [(encoded bitsteam includes interleaved frames {Fig.3}, and provided for decoding {para 64})] .
Therefore, the difference between the claimed invention and Chong is that Chong’s directional preference is not separate from claim type.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Li teaches for the bidirectional video coding directionality is a parameter to choose encoding [(Li disable a directionality mode {para 20-21})]
Therefore in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to reduce redundancy (Li para 20-21) [(Chong select encoder based on details analysis of frame including temporal dependency (TPL) {para 49-51)
Meaning when the frame type and direction are differentiating selecting factor for frame type decision (i.e. in para 20-21, 29 of Li), Chong would select encoder based on that
)]
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 2. (Currently amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: enable the first encoder -to output the first encoded frame when the first encoded frame comprises a first frame type from the at least three different frame types; and enable the second encoder to output the second encoded frame [(para 50-53)]
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the first frame type is an intra-predicted frame type, and the second frame type is a bidirectional inter-predicted frame type [(I-frame is intra and B-frame is bidirectional inter-predicted frame {para 50-53})] .
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 6. The system of claim 2, wherein one of the first encoder and second encoder comprises a software encoder and the other encoder comprises a hardware encoder. [(para 50-53)] .
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 7. The system of claim 2, wherein the first encoder and the second encoder each comprise a hardware encoder. [(para 50-53, Fig.2 112 and 230)] .
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 8. The system of claim 2, wherein the first encoder and the second encoder each comprise a software encoder. . [(para 50-53, Fig.2 124 and 234)] .
Regarding claim 9: see analysis of claim 1.
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 10. The computing device of claim 9, further comprising: a co-processor configured to execute the first encoder or the second encoder as a software encoder [(para 50-53, Fig.2 124 and 234)] .
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 11. The computing device of claim 9, further comprising: dedicated hardware configured to implement the first encoder or the second encoder as a hardware encoder. [(para 50-53, Fig.2 112 and 230)]
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 12. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute a driver that outputs the hybrid bitstream to an application or operating system associated with the video sequence. [(para 64; the encoded data is provided to the client device 130 including an operating system, another software component. A driver is an interface that facilitate hardware interface with operating system)]
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 14. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to input a reconstructed picture associated with the first encoded frame into the second encoder as a reference frame used to encode the second frame [(one type of frame {say I or P-frame} can be used for reference to another type frame {say B-frame} ; reference frame is reconstructed frame)]
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 15. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: enable the first encoder to encode a third frame of the video sequence when a frame type of the third frame comprises a first frame type: and enable the second encoder to encode the third frame when a frame type of the third frame comprises a second frame type. .[[( para 50-53; direction such as P-type /unidirectional or B-type /bidirectional {Fig.2, Fig.4 para 50-51}; B-frame is bidirectional and P-frame is unidirectional {see the arrows in Fig.3 and para 48})]
Chong additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 22. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured: generate reconstructed pictures from previous encoded frames output from the first encoder; and provide the reconstructed pictures to the second encoder as reference frames for outputting subsequent encoded frames of the video sequence. [(Chong para 48; interframe prediction; in an interframe prediction frame such as P-frame or B-frame use reconstructed I-frame as reference)]
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Li in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 21: Chong in view of Li does not explicitly show wherein the processor is configured: maintain separate bitstreams for first encoded frames output from the first encoder and second encoded frames output from the second encoder; and create the hybrid bitstream by interleaving the separate bitstreams.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Lee teaches maintain separate bitstreams for first encoded frames output from the first encoder and second encoded frames output from the second encoder; and create the hybrid bitstream by interleaving the separate bitstreams.
[(the abstract, column 3 lines 5-10, 15-18)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Li in view of Callahan.
Regarding Claim 13: Chong in view of Li does not explicitly show wherein the directional encoding preference is set by the application or operating system associated with the video sequence
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Callahan teaches wherein the directional encoding preference is set by the application or operating system associated with the video sequence [(para 53)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426