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
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 14 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-13 and 15 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.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claim 14. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose “wherein the information on complexity is obtained based on a difference between (i) a first sample value gradient of the current image before a resolution of the current image is changed by applying Reference Picture Resampling (RPR) and (ii) a second sample value gradient of the current image after the resolution of the current image is changed by applying the RPR”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that claim 14 is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The limitations related to the operations that generated the bitstream, including the limitation disputed by the Applicant above, are irrelevant as in terms of determining patentability of the method of transmitting a bitstream Therefore, the operations referenced in the claim(s) that generates the bitstream do not form part of transmitting method, and thus are not limiting to the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim scope is just a method of transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Chadwick which recites a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Chadwick, ¶¶[0050], [0093] and [0095]).
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, 5-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronstein et al. (US20090219993A1), hereinafter referred to as Bronstein, in view of Chadwick et al. (US20220030230A1), hereinafter referred to as Chadwick, further, in view of Andersson et al. (US20240340446A1), hereinafter referred to as Andersson.
Regarding claim 1, Bronstein discloses image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
obtaining information on similarity between a current image and a reference image and information on complexity of the current image (See ¶¶ [0045]–[0047] – obtaining complexity of the current image and similarity to a reference image (current reference motion difference and motion complexity)).
predicting bit rate information and distortion information of one or more candidate resolutions based on the information on similarity and the information on complexity (See ¶¶ [0036]-[0037] and [0048]-[0052] – predicting bit rate and distortion from similarity and complexity)
Bronstein does not explicitly disclose one or more candidate resolutions and selecting a resolution to be applied to the current image from among the candidate resolutions based on the bit rate information and the distortion information; and wherein the information on complexity is obtained based on a difference between (i) a first sample value gradient of the current image before a resolution of the current image is changed by applying Reference Picture Resampling (RPR) and (ii) a second sample value gradient of the current image after the resolution of the current image is changed by applying the RPR.
However, Chadwick from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses one or more candidate resolutions (See ¶¶ [0008]-[0010], [0015], [0038]-[0040] and [0055]-[0058] – candidate resolution via convex-hull estimation with predicted quality per pair) and selecting a resolution to be applied to the current image from among the candidate resolutions based on the bit rate information and the distortion information (See ¶¶ [0018]-[0019], [0078]-[0085] and [0090] –selection subset from predicted RD convex hull; choose quality maximizing resolution at a given bit rate; and include point only if marginal quality-per-cost exceeds a threshold)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bronstein to add the teachings of Chadwick as above, in order to improve video quality (e.g., compared to a fixed bitrate ladder) over a range of bitrates and resolutions based on visual-, motion-, and content-related features of the video (Chadwick, [0011]).
However, Andersson from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses wherein the information on complexity is obtained based on a difference between (i) a first sample value gradient of the current image before a resolution of the current image is changed by applying Reference Picture Resampling (RPR) and (ii) a second sample value gradient of the current image after the resolution of the current image is changed by applying the RPR ( See ¶¶[0039]-[0037] disclosing determine a similarity metrics between the at least one reduced resolution picture and the corresponding source picture based on edge strengths in the pictures, wherein the edge strength is determined by computing sums of differences between samples (e.g. abs(A−B) and abs(A−2*B+C)), and the similarity is determined from a difference between the average edge strength in the source picture and the average edge strength in the reduced resolution picture)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bronstein to add the teachings of Andersson as above, in order to enable switching between different resolutions in a video bitstream without encoding a startup of a new sequence with an intra picture. This gives more flexibility to adapt resolution to control bitrate, which can be of used in, for example, video conferencing or adaptive streaming (Andersson, [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the information on complexity is obtained based on a sample value gradient between a luma sample of the current image and a chroma sample of the current image (See ¶¶ [0007]-[00045] – discloses per-channel sampling and complex framework using cross channel (luma-chrome) gradient is an obvious extension to capture color edge structure( predictable use of known channels)).
Regarding claim 6, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the information on similarity is information on cross correlation between the current image and the reference image or a sample value gradient between the current image and the reference image (See ¶¶ [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the bit rate information is further predicted based on one or more of information on a quantization parameter, information on a temporal layer identifier, information on a slice type, or information on a resolution (See ¶¶ [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses the image encoding method of claim 7, wherein the information on the quantization parameter is a quantization step value defined by the quantization parameter (See ¶¶ [0049]-[0052] – models use quantization as operative parameters in predicting bits and PSNR. Using step value corresponding to the QP is inherent in Bronstein’s model forms).
Regarding claim 9, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses the image encoding method of claim 7, wherein the quantization parameter is a quantization parameter of the current image (See ¶¶ [0049]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the distortion information is further predicted based on one or more of information on a quantization parameter, information on a temporal layer identifier, information on a slice type, or information on a resolution (See ¶¶ [0049]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bronstein does not explicitly disclose the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the resolution to be applied to the current image is selected as a candidate resolution which minimizes rate distortion cost among the candidate resolutions.
However, Chadwick from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the resolution to be applied to the current image is selected as a candidate resolution which minimizes rate distortion cost among the candidate resolutions (See ¶¶[0015], [0038]-[0040] and [0078]-[0085]).
The motivation for combining Bronstein and Chadwick has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bronstein does not explicitly disclose the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the selecting comprising: selecting a candidate resolution in which a difference between bit rate information on a resolution of the current image and the bit rate information exceeds a threshold; and selecting a resolution to be applied to the current image from among the remaining candidate resolutions excluding a candidate resolution exceeding the threshold..
However, Chadwick from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the selecting comprising: selecting a candidate resolution in which a difference between bit rate information on a resolution of the current image and the bit rate information exceeds a threshold; and selecting a resolution to be applied to the current image from among the remaining candidate resolutions excluding a candidate resolution exceeding the threshold (See ¶¶ [0018]-[0019] and [0085]-[0090]).
The motivation for combining Bronstein and Chadwick has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Bronstein and Chadwick disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bronstein does not explicitly disclose the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the selecting comprising: selecting a candidate resolution in which a difference between distortion information on a resolution of the current image and the distortion information exceeds a threshold; and selecting a resolution to be applied to the current image from among the remaining candidate resolutions excluding a candidate resolution exceeding the threshold..
However, Chadwick from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the selecting comprising: selecting a candidate resolution in which a difference between distortion information on a resolution of the current image and the distortion information exceeds a threshold; and selecting a resolution to be applied to the current image from among the remaining candidate resolutions excluding a candidate resolution exceeding the threshold (See ¶¶[0015], [0038]-[0040] and [0085]-[0090]).
The motivation for combining Bronstein and Chadwick has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Bronstein discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method (See Bronstein, ¶¶[0087]-[0088] ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chadwick.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The limitations related to the operations that generated the bitstream are irrelevant as in terms of determining patentability of the method of transmitting a bitstream Therefore, the operations referenced in the claim(s) that generates the bitstream do not form part of transmitting method, and thus are not limiting to the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim scope is just a method of transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Chadwick which recites a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Chadwick, ¶¶[0050], [0093] and [0095]).
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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486