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 20190342551 A1 (Zhu)
US 20200137390 A1 (Lew)
US 20200068197 A1 (Fig. 1)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the amended limitations of the independent claim is not taught by prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Zhu teaches these limitations selecting the alternative quantization parameter from between a first candidate alternative quantization parameter and a second candidate alternative quantization parameter based on a relationship between a complexity of at least one other frame of the set of frames and a complexity of the first frame [(This updates are done based on complexities of first input frame and second input frame {para 97})] , the first candidate alternative quantization parameter being greater than the initial quantization parameter [(Shown explicitly in Fig.9)] and the second candidate alternative quantization parameter being less than the initial quantization parameter; [(para 62; the auxiliary coding parameter/alternative coding parameter is step up or down from the main coding parameter/initial quantization parameter; either auxiliary coding parameter higher than the main or lower than the main is selected)]
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
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, 6-7, 15-18, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view another embodiment of Zhu.
Regarding Claim 1: Zhu teaches a method, comprising: determining an initial quantization parameter associated with a first frame of a set of frames: [(Fig.9, Fig.8; para 96-97 a first quantization parameter/coding parameter QPe is selected for the second frame {teaches the first frame} in Fig.9. In Fig.8 it is CPi2. )] deriving an alternative quantization parameter for the first frame based on the initial quantization parameter[(QPe is iteratively updated until the correct QPe1, that provide target bitrate Re, is achieved {Fig.9}; in Fig.8, CPi2 is iteratively updated)] by
selecting the alternative quantization parameter from between a first candidate alternative quantization parameter and a second candidate alternative quantization parameter based on a relationship between a complexity of at least one other frame of the set of frames and a complexity of the first frame [(This updates are done based on complexities of first input frame and second input frame {para 97})] , the first candidate alternative quantization parameter being greater than the initial quantization parameter [(Shown explicitly in Fig.9)]
performing both a first encoding of the first frame using the initial quantization parameter to produce a first encoded frame and a second encoding of the first frame using the alternative quantization parameter to produce a second encoded frame:[(para 96-97; Fig.8 “second plurality of data streams” is coded first using the initial coding parameter. In case of decision “N” the encoding is done using the alternative/updated parameter)] selecting between the first encoded frame and the second encoded frame for transmission as part of an encoded stream in response to a comparison of the first encoded frame and the second encoded frame to a target frame size [(Fig.8 output ; see para 96 )]: and transmitting the encoded stream [(para 18, 4)] .
Single or current embodiment of Zhu does not explicitly show the second candidate alternative quantization parameter being less than the initial quantization parameter;
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, another embodiment of Zhu teaches the second candidate alternative quantization parameter being less than the initial quantization parameter; [(para 62; the auxiliary coding parameter/alternative coding parameter is step up or down from the main coding parameter/initial quantization parameter; either auxiliary coding parameter higher than the main or lower than the main is selected)]
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 embodiments because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 7. The method of claim 1 wherein deriving the alternative quantization parameter further comprises: in response to the complexity of the at least one other frame being less than the complexity of the first frame, selecting the first candidate alternative quantization parameter. [(see Fig.9, para 97; R-Q curve 1 is lower (alternative frame) is equated to lower complexity )]
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 6. The method of claim 1 wherein deriving the alternative quantization parameter further comprises: in response to the complexity of the at least one other frame being greater than the complexity of the first frame, selecting the second candidate alternative quantization parameter. [(see Fig.9, para 97; R-Q curve 1 is lower (alternative frame) is equated to lower complexity; and note para 62; the auxiliary coding parameter/alternative coding parameter is step up or down from the main coding parameter/initial quantization parameter; either auxiliary coding parameter higher than the main or lower than the main is selected )]
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 15. The method of any of claim 1, wherein the alternative quantization parameter is one of a plurality of alternative quantization parameters [(Fig.8-9 ; see para 96-97 )]:
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 16. The method of claim 15, further comprising: deriving the plurality of alternative quantization parameters according to the set of frames [(Fig.8-9 ; see para 96-97 )]:
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the encoded stream is encoded for a target bitrate [(Fig.8-9 ; see para 96-97 )]
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 18. The method of claim 17, further comprising: comparing each the first and second encoded frames to the target bitrate: and selecting between the first encoded frame and the second encoded frame further in response to the comparison of each the first and second encoded frames to the target bitrate. [(Fig.8-9 ; see para 96-97 )]
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 22. The method of any of claim 1, further comprising: decoding the encoded stream to produce a decoded stream: and displaying the decoded stream. [(Zhu para 5)] .
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 23. The method of claim 1, wherein the first encoding and the second encoding are both performed within a predetermined duration. [(Zhu they are done within the same duration {Fig.6} Lew second-pass encoding is done immediately after the first pass)]
Zhu additionally teaches, with respect to claim 24. The method of claim 1, wherein the first encoding and the second encoding are performed concurrently [(Zhu Fig.6)]
Claims 2,-3, 8-10, 12-14, 19-21, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu’s embodiments in view of Lew.
Regarding Claim 2: Zhu’s embodiments does not explicitly show performing a first pass encoding on the previous frame to produce a first pass encoded frame: and determining the initial quantization parameter based on the first pass encoded frame, instead Zhu find the initial quantization parameter based on the encoding of a previous frame [(Fig. 8)]
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Lew teaches performing a first pass encoding on the previous frame to produce a first pass encoded frame: and determining the initial quantization parameter based on the first pass encoded frame.[(Lew para 17)]
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 replace the teaching of Zhu with first pass encoding of the first frame of Lew, because such replacement would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities [(Lew teaches these are alternative {“ when encoding new frame 205. In one implementation, control logic 220 generates QP 225 based on parameters for previous frame(s) 210 and/or parameters from a first-pass encoding of new frame”, para 17})]
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 3. The method of claim 2, determining the initial quantization parameter further comprises: determining the complexity for the first frame based on a statistic of the first pass encoded frame: and determining the initial quantization parameter based upon the complexity. .[[(Lew para 19)]
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches 8. The method of claim 3,wherein determining the complexity of the at least one other frame of the set of frames comprises calculating an average for one or more complexities of previously encoded frames of the set of frames and comparing the average to the complexity of the first frame currently to be encoded. [(please note average of one complexity is simply that complexity. Zhu para 97; Lew para 12 )]
Regarding Claim 9: See analysis of claims 1 and 2 and note Lew teaches deriving an alternative quantization parameter for the first frame based on at least one other frame of the set of frames the second pass parameters are based on previous frame [(para 18, second-pass encoding parameters are based on previous frame)]
Regarding Claims 10, 12: See analysis of claims 2-3 and 6-7
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 13. The method of claim 9, wherein the streaming application comprises at least one of a target size, a target efficiency, a target reliability, or a target latency [(Zhu para 53-54)] .
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 14. The method of claim 9, wherein selecting between the first encoded frame and the second encoded frame for transmission in an encoded stream based on the streaming application further comprises: determining a target frame size based on the streaming application: and comparing each of the first and second encoded frames to the target frame size [(Zhu para 53-54)] .
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 19. The method of claim 1, wherein the encoded game stream is associated with a gaming session [(Lew para 14; cloud gaming, have gaming session)] .
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 20. The method of claim 19, wherein the first frame represents at least a portion of a virtual environment associated with the gaming session [(Lew para 14; cloud gaming, examiner takes official notice that game application video having virtual environment associated with gaming session is common knowledge )].
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 21. The method of claim 19, wherein the encoded game stream is transmitted to a client device associated with the gaming session. [(Lew para 14, 29)]
.
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 25. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a complexity of the selected encoded frame: and storing a representation of the complexity in a memory buffer [(Lew para 17; storing parameter in the memory from first pass)]
Zhu in view of Lew additionally teaches, with respect to claim 26. The method of claim 25, further comprising: performing a second encoding of a second frame of the set of frames based on the stored representation of the complexity [(Lew para 31)] .
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
Prosecution Insights