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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 – 8, applicant argues that neither Chen nor Furlan teach wherein all frames of the encoded video are predicted frames as currently claimed because Furlan teaches storing the still image frame as an I-frame in the resulting video sequence. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on a Furlan in maintained the rejection.
Examiner first notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the still image is not included in the encoded video stream) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As currently claimed, the still image is used as a reference frame for encoding the video frames with all video frames being encoded using prediction. Furlan teaches this at least at Fig. 4 and pars. 38 – 42 and 62. There, Furlan teaches a captured still image as a reference frame for a video sequence during encoding, all frames of the video sequence encoded as P and B frames, wherein encoding a video sequence as P and B frames is the equivalent of encoding all frames of the video sequence. The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 13, 18, 52, 53, 55, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2013/0038686) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Furlan (US 2010/0295966) (hereinafter Furlan).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Chen teaches a method and a system comprising control circuitry configured to perform the method, the metho comprising:
receiving, by control circuitry, image data comprising a first video having a capture duration (e.g. Fig. 1 and par. 42: depicting and describing that the system receives image data, the image data including a video);
image encoding, by control circuitry, the first still image for storage (Chen, e.g. Figs. 2 and 4, and pars. 42, 72 – 85 and 105: depicting and describing that a first frame of the video is encoded, wherein a frame of video is the equivalent of a still image); and
video encoding, by control circuitry, the first video via inter-prediction for storage, said inter-prediction using a reference frame as a surrogate intra-coded (I) frame, the reference frame comprising the first still image (e.g. Figs. 2 and 4, and pars. 72 – 85 and 105: depicting and describing that the first frame of the video [I-frame] is used as a reference frame for inter-prediction coding of other frames of the video, wherein the first frame of video is the equivalent of the still image).
Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the image data further comprising a first still image captured during the capture duration, wherein the video encoding further comprises generating an encoded video wherein all frames of the encoded video are predicted frames.
Furlan, however, teaches a method and system:
wherein the image data further comprising a first still image captured during the capture duration, wherein the video encoding further comprises generating an encoded video wherein all frames of the encoded video are predicted frames (e.g. Figs. 4, and pars. 38 – 42 and 62: depicting and describing that high-resolution still images are captured at the same time as lower resolution video images are captured, the still images are used as I-frames while the video data are P-frames and B-frames, the still images being stored as JPEG images while the encoded video are stored as H.264 video, wherein encoding video data as P-frames and B-frames is the equivalent of generating encoded video wherein all frames of the encoded video are predicted frames).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Furlan in order for the image data to further comprise a first still image captured during the capture duration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows for both video images and high-resolution still images to be available for playback (Furlan, e.g. par. 34: describing a desire to provide both lower resolution video images and high-resolution still images for display automatically).
Turning to claims 2 and 12, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the image data further comprises a second video captured simultaneously with the first video, wherein the reference frame is a first reference frame, and a second still image captured simultaneously with the first still image (e.g. Fig. 4 and pars. 103 – 104: depicting and describing that the system receives image data containing two views such that a stereoscopic pair is formed, wherein image data containing two views is the equivalent of a second video and a second still image [wherein a frame of the second video is the equivalent of a still image, see discussion above], wherein it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that in order to form a stereo pair, slightly displaced images must necessarily be captured at the same time); and
wherein: the image encoding further comprises image encoding the second still image; and the video encoding further comprises video encoding the second video via inter-prediction for storage, said inter-prediction using a second reference frame as a surrogate I-frame, the second reference frame comprising at least one of: the first still image; or the second still image (e.g. Figs. 4 and 5A, and pars. 105 – 106 and 117 – 119: depicting and describing that the system encodes the second view video using a frame from the first view video to predict the second view video, the frame of the first view video being an I-frame, wherein the frame of the first view video is the equivalent of the first still image [see discussion above]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and claims 11 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein image encoding the second still image comprises inter-view prediction using the first still image as a reference picture (e.g. Fig. 5A and pars. 117 – 119: depicting and describing that encoding a frame of the second view comprises inter-view prediction using a frame of the first view as a reference picture, wherein the frame of the first view is the equivalent of the first still image and the frame of the second view is the equivalent of the second still image).
Turning to claim 4, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the first still image is captured using one or more first optical parameters and the second still image is captured using one or more second optical parameters different to the one or more first optical parameters (e.g. pars. 103 – 104: describing that the at least two videos are videos of two different fields of view, wherein a first video captured with a first field of view and a second video captured with a second field of view is the equivalent of the first image being captured using one or more first optical parameters and the second image being captured using one or more second optical parameters different from the first optical parameters).
Regarding claim 5, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the video encoding further comprises: generating the second reference frame, said generating comprising:
decoding at least one of: the encoded first still image; or the encoded second still image (e.g. Fig. 5A, element 106, and pars. 117 – 119: depicting and describing that the system decodes an encoded picture of the first view, wherein a picture of the first view is the equivalent of the first still image); and
adjusting at least one of: the decoded first still image; or the decoded second still image, said adjusting using one or more selected from: spatial alignment; cropping; scaling; resampling (e.g. Fig. 5A, element 108, and pars. 117 – 119: depicting and describing that the system upsamples the decoded picture of the first view, wherein upsampling the picture is the equivalent of resampling, and wherein the picture of the first view is the equivalent of the first still image).
Turning to claim 6, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 5, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein said adjusting is based on a video frame being encoded from at least one of: the first video; or the second video, said adjusting comprising: identifying a matched feature between: at least one of: the first still image; or the second still image; and the video frame being encoded; and adjusting at least one of: the decoded first still image; or the decoded second still image, such that the generated second reference frame comprises the matched feature (e.g. Fig. 5A and pars. 117 – 122: depicting and describing that the system adjusts the first view picture based on the resolution of the picture to be encoded, the picture of the first view either upsampled or downsampled to match the resolution of the picture to be encoded, wherein upsampling or downsampling an image is the equivalent of resampling, wherein the picture to be encoded is the equivalent of either the first video or the second video, wherein the first view picture is the equivalent of the first still image, wherein determining the resolution of the picture to be encoded is the equivalent of identifying the matched feature, and wherein resampling the picture of the first view based on whether the picture of the second view is at full resolution or half resolution is the equivalent of adjusting the decoded first still image such that the generated reference frame comprises the matched feature).
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 5, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the first video and the first still image share a common first perspective, and wherein the second video and the second still image share a common second perspective; and wherein generating the second reference frame further comprises forming a stereoscopic still image from the first still image and second still image (e.g. Fig. 4 and pars. 101 – 104: depicting and describing a first video comprising a plurality of frames, the first video having a first view [S0] and a second video comprising a plurality of frames, the second video having a second view [S1], frames of the first video and frames of the second video forming stereo view pairs, wherein a frame of the first video is the equivalent of the first still image and a frame of the second video is the equivalent of the second still image [see discussion above]).
Turning to claims 8 and 18, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and claims 11 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the video encoding further comprises: generating video frames to be video encoded, said generating comprising: adjusting frames of at least one of: the first video; or the second video, said adjusting using one or more selected from: spatial alignment; cropping; scaling; resampling; frame rate adjustment; aspect ratio adjustment; letter-boxing; pillar-boxing (e.g. Fig. 5A and pars. 117 – 122: depicting and describing that frames of the first view video and frames of the second view video are downsampled, wherein downsampling is the equivalent of resampling).
Chen does not explicitly teach:
excluding, for said video encoding, a first video frame of the first video captured at a same first time instance as the first still image and a second video frame of the second video captured at a same second time instance as the second still image.
Furlan, however, teaches a method and system:
excluding, for said video encoding, a first video frame of the first video captured at a same first time instance as the first still image and a second video frame of the second video captured at a same second time instance as the second still image (e.g. par. 41: describing that a captured still image takes the place of a frame of a video when captured at the same time as the video [captured still image replaces frames 1 and 21 of the video, the system then encoding only frames 2 – 20 of the captured video], wherein the still image taking the place of a frame of video captured at the same time is the equivalent of excluding from encoding a video frame of the first video captured at the a same time instance as the first still image and a video frame of the second video captured at a same time instance of the second still image).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Furlan in order to exclude, for said video encoding, a video frame of the first video captured at a same time instance as the first still image and a video frame of the second video captured at a same time instance as the second still image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows for both video images and high-resolution still images to be available for playback (Furlan, e.g. par. 34: describing a desire to provide both lower resolution video images and high-resolution still images for display automatically).
Regarding claim 9, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 8, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the video encoding further comprises: resampling the second reference frame, such that the resampled second reference frame comprises a first resolution matching a second resolution of the video frames; and video encoding the video frames to be video encoded using the resampled reference frame (e.g. Fig. 5A, and pars. 117 – 122: depicting and describing that the system either downsamples or upsamples a picture of the first view video to match the resolution of the other view video to be encoded, the system encoding pictures of the other view using the resampled picture of the first view [downsampled to match the resolution of the second view video and upsampled to match the resolution of the third view video], wherein the picture of the first view video is the equivalent of the reference frame).
Turning to claim 10, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 8, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the video encoding further comprises: encoding the video frames via inter-prediction using the second reference frame in a reverse display order from a third time instance of the reference frame; and encoding the video frames via inter-prediction using the second reference frame in a forward display order from a fourth time instance of the second reference frame (e.g. Fig. 4 and par. 105: depicting and describing that the system encodes frames using inter-prediction with the reference frame in a reverse display order from a time instance of the reference frame [I-frame at T8 used as a reference frame for inter-prediction of frames T4, T6, and T7, frames at T4, T6, and T7 occurring earlier in time than I-frame at T8], and the system encodes frames using inter-prediction using the reference frame in a forward display order [I-frame at T0 used as reference frame for frames at T1, T2, and T4, frames at T1, T2, and T4 occurring at time instances after the I-frame at T0]).
Turning to claims 52 and 55, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
storing the encoded video (e.g. Fig. 1, par. 44: depicting and describing that the system stores the encoded video, the encoded video being generated using prediction [see, e.g. Fig. 2 and pars. 71 – 80: depicting and describing that the system encodes video data using prediction]).
Regarding claims 53 and 56, Chen and Furlan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
removing from the first video, prior to the video encoding, a video frame that corresponds to time instance when the first still image was captured; wherein the video encoding comprises generating an encoded video based on the first video that has been modified to remove the video frame that corresponds to the time instance when the first still image was captured; and storing the encoded video.
Furlan, however, teaches a method and system:
removing from the first video, prior to the video encoding, a video frame that corresponds to time instance when the first still image was captured; wherein the video encoding comprises generating an encoded video based on the first video that has been modified to remove the video frame that corresponds to the time instance when the first still image was captured; and storing the encoded video (e.g. par. 41: describing that a captured still image takes the place of a frame of a video when captured at the same time as the video [captured still image replaces frames 1 and 21 of the video, the system then encoding only frames 2 – 20 of the captured video], wherein the still image taking the place of a frame of video captured at the same time is the equivalent of removing from the first video prior to encoding, a video frame that corresponds to the time instances when the first still image was captured).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Furlan in order to remove from the first video, prior to the video encoding, a video frame that corresponds to time instance when the first still image was captured, wherein the video encoding comprises generating an encoded video based on the first video that has been modified to remove the video frame that corresponds to the time instance when the first still image was captured; and storing the encoded video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows for both video images and high-resolution still images to be available for playback (Furlan, e.g. par. 34: describing a desire to provide both lower resolution video images and high-resolution still images for display automatically).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5805228 – describing a system that uses a high quality still image as a reference image for encoding a video sequence
US2009/0141810 – describing a system that uses a high quality still image as a referenced image for encoding a video sequence
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 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 SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights