DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-32 are pending.
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 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) 1-2, 7-16, 21-28, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priddle et al. (US 2011/0185058) in view of Mitchard et al. (US 2022/0021941), and further in view of Munukutla et al. (US 2017/0200472).
Claim 1 and 15, 29, Priddle teaches an encoder comprising:
circuitry, which, in operation, encodes a video stream (p.0005, 0092); and
memory coupled to the circuitry (p. 0092), wherein
“encodes, original speed information (i.e. non-fast forward channel) related to the second speed” (p. 0043-0047).
Priddle is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
the video is specified to be outputted at a first speed different from a second speed at which the video is captures by a camera;
“indicating a temporal distance between captured pictures and capturing the video”.
Mitchard teaches the specific feature of:
the video is specified to be outputted at a first speed different from a second speed at which the video is captures by a camera (i.e. encoded video at 2 different frame rates) (p. 0132-0143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided different frame rates for video as taught by Mitchard to the system of Priddle to play content as slower speeds (p. 0130-0134).
Munukutla teaches the specific feature of:
“indicating a temporal distance (i.e. score includes temporal distance) between captured pictures at a time when the video is captured by the camera” (i.e. during capturing, playback rate can be changed based on the scores of the captures, the score incorporates a temporal distance of captured frames and blurred frames) (p. 0048-0055, 0063-0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a temporal distance of frames of varying quality scores as taught by Munukutla to the system of Priddle to provide for managing playback rate of blurred images (p. 0055).
Claim 2, 16, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry encodes, into the bitstream, time information (i.e. time stamps) and scale information (i.e. speeds) as the original speed information (p. 0011, 0023-0047, 0065), and
the second speed is calculated based on the time information and the scale information (i.e. how many X of original speed) (p. 0011, 0023-0047, 0065).
Claim 7, 21, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the original speed information indicates a picture interval of the video to reproduce the video at the second speed (i.e. dropping P or B frames) (p. 0053-0059).
Claim 8, 22, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the original speed information indicates a scale factor of the second speed relative to the first speed (i.e. normal speed or 1X vs 2X, etc) (p. 0043-0047).
Claim 9, 23, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 8, wherein
the original speed information includes a numerator parameter and a denominator parameter (i.e. normal speed 1X or 1/1 vs 2X. 2/1) (p. 0043-0047), and
the scale factor is indicated by dividing the numerator parameter by the denominator parameter (i.e. normal speed 1X or 1/1 vs 2X. 2/1) (p. 0043-0047).
Claim 10, 24, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
in encoding the video, for each of temporal sublayers (i.e. alternative speeds) included in the bitstream, the circuitry encodes, into the bitstream, a conformance capability level (i.e. level required) required by a decoder when reproducing the video at the second speed (p. 0043-0047).
Claim 11, 25, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
in encoding the video, the circuitry encodes, into the bitstream, a first conformance capability level required by a decoder when reproducing the video at the first speed and a second conformance capability level required by the decoder when reproducing the video at the second speed (i.e. requred levels for decoding according to list) (p. 0043-0053) .
Claim 12, 26, Priddle teaches The encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the first speed corresponds to a slow motion or a fast motion (i.e. slow motion playout) (p. 0061), and
the circuitry encodes, into the bitstream, the video as a slow-motion video or a fast-motion video (p. 0061).
Claim 13, 27, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry further encodes, into the bitstream, information indicating a relationship between the first speed and the second speed (i.e. list contains a regular speed and a multiplier of the original speed alternatives) (p. 0043-0053).
Claim 14, 28, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
in encoding the video, the circuitry encodes, into the bitstream, speed information that is information (i) related to speeds including the second speed (i.e. list of alternative speeds), (ii) to reproduce the video at each of the speeds, and (iii) including the original speed information (i.e. original non fast forwarded speed) (p. 0043-0053).
Claim 30 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 1.
Claim 31 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 15.
Claim 32 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream executed by a computer” to perform the steps of claim 1. Priddle teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream executed by a computer” to perform the steps of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3-4, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priddle et al. (US 2011/0185058) in view of Mitchard et al. (US 2022/0021941), and further in view of Munukutla et al. (US 2017/0200472), and further in view of Lefevre et al. (US 2018/0270536).
Claim 3, 17, Priddle is silent regarding the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry further encodes, into the bitstream, output time information related to an output time of the video.
Lefevre teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry further encodes, into the bitstream, output time information related to an output time of the video (i.e. percentage of original video) (p. 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided output time of content as taught by Lefevre to the system of Priddle to provide power savings version content (p. 0035).
Claims 4, 18, Priddle teaches the encoder according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry further:
derives, using the original speed information (i.e. 1X), second timing information indicating a process timing to reproduce the video at the second speed (i.e. selecting a faster alternative version with respect to the original speed) (p. 0043-0047).
Priddle is silent regarding the encoder according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry further:
derives, using the output time information, first timing information indicating a process timing to reproduce the video at the first speed.
LeFevre teaches the encoder according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry further:
derives, using the output time information (i.e. durations), first timing information indicating a process timing to reproduce the video at the first speed (i.e. percentage of original) (p. 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided output time of content as taught by Lefevre to the system of Priddle to provide power savings version content (p. 0035).
Claim(s) 5,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priddle et al. (US 2011/0185058) in view of Mitchard et al. (US 2022/0021941), and further in view of Munukutla et al. (US 2017/0200472), and further in view of Hardy et al. (US 2017/0223423).
Claim 5, 19, Priddle is silent regarding the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry encodes the original speed information into a header included in the bitstream.
Hardy teaches regarding the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry encodes the original speed information into a header included in the bitstream (p. 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided speed information of a stream as taught by Hardy to the system of Priddle to process speed information located in a header (p. 0016).
Claim(s) 6, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priddle et al. (US 2011/0185058) in view of Mitchard et al. (US 2022/0021941), and further in view of Munukutla et al. (US 2017/0200472), and further in view of Boyce et al. (US 2008/0252228).
Claim 6, 20, Priddle is silent regarding the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry encodes the original speed information into supplemental enhancement information (SEI) included in the bitstream.
Boyce teaches the encoder according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry encodes the original speed information into supplemental enhancement information (SEI) included in the bitstream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided speed information in the SEI as taught by Boyce to the system of Priddle to decode different speeds (p. 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-32 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
Claims 1-32 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200275097 A1 Dorovic; Katarina et al. – determining motion speed
US 20160014374 A1 Van Woerdekom; Antonie – temporal distance between time stamps
US 20150120957 A1 Yun; Joungil et al. – encoding high speed streaming
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 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 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 9/9/2026
Prosecution Insights