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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, and 17-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), as well claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner is persuaded that Zhu does not disclose “a feedback message indicative of a transmission quality of the first portion of the image data”- although Zhu discloses receiving a feedback message from a remote receiving device, at least in [0047], the feedback is a “current channel capacity, the current channel bandwidth, the transmission latency, and/or the like, from a receiving terminal over the transmission channel”, which are feedback message relating to channel/bandwidth conditions, rather than video quality feedback, per se. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly found prior art, Debnath, US 2024/0275983 A1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, US 2019/0342551 A1, in view of Debnath, US 2024/0275983 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses: a method comprising:
receiving, from an imaging component of a vehicle and by a plurality of fixed bit rate image encoding devices of the vehicle (See [0019], “the transmitting terminal 100 may be integrated in a mobile body, such as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), a driverless car, a mobile robot, a driverless boat, a submarine, a spacecraft, a satellite, or the like.”), image data comprising a plurality of frames, each of the plurality of fixed bit rate image encoding devices configured to encode the image data at a respective different fixed bit rate (See description in [0056] of a multi-rate encoding apparatus 130, in which a plurality of encoded data streams having a corresponding plurality of bitrate values can be generated by the multi-rate encoder.);
simultaneously encoding, by each of the plurality of fixed bit rate image encoding devices at their respective different fixed bit rates, a first portion of the image data (See [0068], disclosing with respect to figure 2, the multi-rate encoding apparatus 130 “can include a plurality of separate single-rate encoders, each single-rate encoder can be used to encode the first input frame using one of the first plurality of coding parameter values to generate a corresponding one of the first plurality of encoded data streams.”);
transmitting, by one or more communication components of the vehicle, the first portion of the image data encoded at a first bit rate by a first one of the fixed rate image encoding devices (As shown in FIG. 1, the transmitting terminal 100 includes an image capturing device 110, a multi-rate encoding apparatus 130 coupled to the image capturing device 110, and a transceiver 150 coupled to the multi-rate encoding apparatus 130.);
simultaneously encoding, by each of the plurality of fixed bit rate image encoding devices at their respective different fixed bit rates, a second portion of the image data (See [0068], which discloses “In some embodiments, the encoding processes of the first input frame using the first plurality of coding parameter values can be separate processes and implemented in parallel.”);
receiving, by the one or more communication components of the vehicle, a feedback message comprising an indication of a quality metric for the first portion of the image data encoded at the first bit rate (See [0045], “In some embodiments, the rate selector 1305 can be also configured to obtain feedback information including, for example, the current channel capacity, the current channel bandwidth, the transmission latency, and/or the like, from the transceiver 150.”); and
based on the indication of the quality metric for the first portion of the image data encoded at the first bit rate, transmitting by the one or more communication components of the vehicle, either (i) the second portion of the image data encoded at the first bit rate by the first one of the fixed rate image encoding devices or (ii) the second portion of the image data encoded at a second bit rate by a second one of the fixed rate image encoding devices (See figure 6, showing a rate control model curve formed using a plurality of encoded streams simultaneously encoded by the plurality of processing modules 330-1,…, 330N. One among these streams is selected as an output data stream in the final step in figure 8, in the event that the quality metric (the difference between the second actual bitrate value and the expected bitrate value for the second input frame) is within a preset range.).
Zhu discloses receiving feedback information from a remote (to a sending vehicle) receiver about “the current channel capacity, the current channel bandwidth, the transmission latency, and/or the like, from a receiving terminal over the transmission channel”, as disclosed in [0047], but not disclose specifically disclose
receiving, by the one or more communication components of the vehicle and from a remote receiving device, a feedback message comprising an indication of a quality metric indicative of a transmission quality of the first portion of the image data encoded at the first bit rate as received by the remote receiving device, wherein the remote receiving device determined the quality metric based on the first portion of the image data encoded at the first bit rate as received by the remote receiving device
However, in an analogous art directed to optimizing video compression for a remote vehicle control system, Debnath discloses in [0143]-[0144] providing compression optimization (rate control) based on a feedback loop using, in part, video quality as a feedback metric; “in block 1020, the present invention can continuously monitor the performance of the teleoperated vehicle in real-time, including assessing the efficiency of data transmission, the quality of video received by the remote operator,”
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle video system of Zhu by the teaching of Debnath by incorporating video quality feedback so as to better ensure ensuring that the video compression quality level remains aligned with the dynamic requirements of a teleoperate vehicle system (UAV) or the like, continuously improving the quality of video transmission and the effectiveness of remote vehicle control.” Debnath [0143], Zhu [0019].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhu in view of Debnath discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 2. This combination, specifically Zhu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the first portion is a first frame of image data and the second portion is a second frame of image data (See steps 703 and 709 in figure 7, respectively disclosing, “Encode a first input frame using the first plurality of coding parameter values” and “Encode a second input frame based on the updated rate control model.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhu in view of Debnath discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 3. This combination, specifically Zhu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the second frame portion is successive to the first portion (See [0087], “In some embodiments, a reconstructed frame obtained from the output data stream for the first input frame can be used as the context of a second input frame. That is, a reconstructed frame obtained from the output data stream for the first input frame can be used as a reference for the prediction of the second input frame.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhu in view of Debnath discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 6. This combination, specifically Zhu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the first frame portion encoded at the first bit rate is transmitted via a satellite communication link ([0020] discloses, “If the transmitting terminal 100 is a hosted payload carried by a commercial satellite, one or more of the multiple channels of encoded data streams can be over space and air.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhu in view of Debnath discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 7. This combination, specifically Zhu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of fixed bit rate image encoding devices are configured to continuously encode the image data at their respective different fixed bit rates (See [0068], “In some embodiments, the encoding processes of the first input frame using the first plurality of coding parameter values can be separate processes and implemented in parallel.”)
System claims 9-11, 14, and 15 recite a system that corresponds to method claims 1-3, 6, and 7, respectively. Therefore, system claims 9-11, 14, and 15, are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness, respectively, provided above for claims 1-3, 6, and 7.
Apparatus claims 17 and 19 are directed to an apparatus having one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform steps corresponding to the steps of method claims 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore, apparatus claims 17 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zhu in view of Debnath discloses the limitations of claim 17, upon which depends claim 18. This combination, specifically Zhu, further discloses: the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to:
receive, by the one or more communication components, a feedback message comprising an indication of a quality metric for the first frame encoded at the first bit rate (See “feedback information”, disclosed in [0045]: In some embodiments, the rate selector 1305 can be also configured to obtain feedback information including, for example, the current channel capacity, the current channel bandwidth.”);
encode, by the second image encoding device of the plurality of image encoding devices, a second frame of the plurality of frames at the second bit rate ([0046] discloses rate selector transmits at a second bitrate selected by choosing another stream from one among the single-rate encoders, based on feedback about current channel capacity, bandwidth, latency, or the like.); and
transmit, by the one or more communication components and based at least in part on the
indication of the quality metric, the second frame encoded at the second bit rate (As disclosed in [0045], “The rate selector 1305 is configured to select one of the plurality of encoded data streams as the output data stream based on, for example, a current channel capacity, a current channel bandwidth, a transmission latency, and/or the like,”).
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.
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Kaye, US 9,585,062 B2.
Regarding claim 5, Zhu discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the quality metric comprises a packet error rate.
However, Kaye discloses in an analogous art directed to a system for transmission of video from a mobile device to a network, that a packet delivery failure rate is used as the basis for bit rate adjustments. See abstract, and column 9, lines 24-30; “packet delivery failure is the rate at which packets are lost.” “An increasing packet delivery failure rate is an indicator of an unstable/unreliable RF interface and the associated bit rate must be decreased.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to add the feature disclosed in Kaye of using a packet delivery failure rate as the quality metric, in place of or in addition to the bitrate measurement made in Zhu. Using a packet delivery failure rate as a quality metric allows the system to account for dropped packets as a measure of bitrate overshoot. Adding this metric would have merely entailed combining the features respectively disclosed in Zhu and in Kaye, with no changes to their respective functioning, and the results would have been predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Regarding claim 8, Zhu discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first frame portion encoded at the first bit rate further comprises:
transmitting the first frame portion to a ground-based communication component
However, Kaye discloses this feature in an analogous art directed to a system for transmission of video from a mobile device to a network. See abstract. See system 10 Buffer Management and Transport Controller 34 which, as disclosed in column 5, lines 61 to column 6, receives feedback messages from RF modules about coverage, congestion, and transmission failures from base station 40 (a “ground-based communication component”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to transmit to a ground-based communication component, such as a base station, as disclosed in Kaye. Zhu discloses that an image capturing device according to the invention may be a smartphone (See [0049].) In the context of this disclosure, transmitting to a base station would have been obvious and would have merely entailed combining the respective features disclosed in Zhu and in Kim with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
System claims 13 and 16 recite a system that corresponds to method claims 5 and 8, respectively. Therefore, system claims 13 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness, respectively, provided above for claims 5 and 8.
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 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 KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights