DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. The amendment filed on 5/11/26 is entered and made of record.
III. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected, and claim 8-10 is/are allowable. Explanations will be provided below.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-14 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations:
receiving at least one of an image, a video frame, or a point cloud frame; using the machine vision algorithm for detection and classification of one or more objects in the at least one of the image, the video frame, or the point cloud frame, the machine vision algorithm producing a score indicating how certain the machine vision algorithm is about the detection and classification of the one or more objects
receiving at least one frame from an encoder; using the machine vision algorithm for detection and classification of one or more objects in the at least one frame, the machine vision algorithm producing a score indicating how certain the machine vision algorithm is about the detection and classification of the one or more objects; and
filling a buffer with one of uncompressed sensor output or with encoding at a highest bit rate of the different bit rates; sending at least one frame to a control system for analysis
effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of bit rate adjustments which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. The PCT application, PCT/SE2022/050809, is considered and the examiner determined no reference prior art are relevant to the claims of the current application.
[2] Response to Arguments
The arguments presented by the applicant have been considered and are found partially convincing. Regarding arguments to claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
51
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner agrees and will withdraw rejection for claims 1-7.
Regarding arguments to claim 11:
PNG
media_image2.png
79
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees. The limitation cites the following: filling a buffer with one of uncompressed sensor output or with encoding at a highest bit rate of the different bit rates, which is read by Senarath in see figure 1, where 36 filled with uncompressed data from sensor. The applicant also stated:
PNG
media_image3.png
83
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees. The limitation does not cite those exact words or scope. Senarath (US 6778499) discloses encoding data in the buffer at the specified bit rate (see figure 1, 18 data channel encoder encodes data in the buffer and also see column 7, lines 22-25, filled with uncompressed data from sensor, the controller remains in state 54. 55: When the controller enters this state, R(t) is preferably set to a rate of RMAX, which is the maximum possible data rate of the bursty data stream, R(t) may be set to a value which is slightly greater than RMAX, where if LBUF (t) falls below a threshold occupancy level LL3).
The encoding rate relies on processor speed. The specified bit rate can mean the data entering or leaving the encoder, which is read as Senarath. The arguments presented by the applicant is found unconvincing. The prior art rejections of claims 11-14 will be maintained.
[3] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[4] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
3. Claims 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US 20080165861) in view of Senarath (US 6778499).
Regarding claim 11, Wen discloses a method performed by an encoder configured to use different bit rates, the method comprising:
encoding video frames at a lowest bit rate of the different bit rates (see paragraph 49, the non-spatial ROI MBs having the lowest overall priority can be assigned the highest quantization parameter, the lowest target bitrate);
sending at least one frame to a control system for analysis (see figure 1, 102 sends frames to 112 for analysis);
receiving an instruction from the control system to encode at a specified bit rate (see paragraph 31, the incoming video is received at an option generator 302 that generates the options for the encoding operation, in view of the resources and constraints as noted above, then an encoding rule generator 304 determines the encoding parameter settings that will be selected for the video content and resources available).
Wen is silent in disclosing filling a buffer with one of uncompressed sensor output or with encoding at a highest bit rate of the different bit rates and encoding data in the buffer at the specified bit rate.
Senarath discloses filling a buffer with one of uncompressed sensor output or with encoding at a highest bit rate of the different bit rates (see figure 1, 36 filled with uncompressed data from sensor) and encoding data in the buffer at the specified bit rate (see figure 1, 18 data channel encoder encodes data in the buffer and also see column 7, lines 22-25, filled with uncompressed data from sensor, the controller remains in state 54. 55: When the controller enters this state, R(t) is preferably set to a rate of RMAX, which is the maximum possible data rate of the bursty data stream, R(t) may be set to a value which is slightly greater than RMAX, where if LBUF (t) falls below a threshold occupancy level LL3):
PNG
media_image4.png
447
860
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include encoding data in the buffer at the specified bit rate in order
to manage the trade-off between data quality and resource constraints, primarily bandwidth and storage capacity. It also ensures the data stream does not exceed the available network bandwidth.
Regarding claim 12, Senarath discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: periodically sending at least one frame of encoded data from the buffer to the control system for further analysis (see figure 1, 38 and also see column 4, lines 59-64, controller 38 follows a sequence of steps for processing the buffer occupancy level LBUF (t) and the system parameters in order to generate a signal indicative of a desired output rate, denoted R(t), and a signal indicative of a desired output power level, denoted P(t)); receiving a second instruction from the control system to encode at a new specified bit rate (see figure 2 illustration below); and encoding data in the buffer at the new specified bit rate (column 7, lines 22-25, filled with uncompressed data from sensor, the controller remains in state 54. 55: When the controller enters this state, R(t) is preferably set to a rate of RMAX, which is the maximum possible data rate of the bursty data stream, R(t) may be set to a value which is slightly greater than RMAX, where if LBUF (t) falls below a threshold occupancy level LL3):
PNG
media_image5.png
228
497
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
See the motivation for claim 11. In addition, periodically sending at least one frame of encoded data from a buffer to a control system to maintain system stability, safeguarding data integrity, and allowing real-time analysis without overloading the receiver.
Regarding claim 13, Senarath discloses the method of claim 12 wherein the second instruction indicates the new specified bit rate as the lowest bit rate and instructs the encoded to dismiss the data in the buffer (see column 4, lines 17-21, data stream produced by the data source 12 is typically bursty in nature, with a bit rate that varies in time between a minimum bit rate RMIN and a maximum bit rate RMAX and possibly one or more intermediate bit rates, also when data overflow in the data buffer, data will be remove). See the motivation for claim 11. In addition, “instructs the encoded to dismiss the data in the buffer” to reduce the outgoing data rate to prevent the receiver’s buffer from emptying (underflow), which would cause a video pause.
Regarding claim 14, Senarath discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the instruction and the second instruction specify which part of a video sequence or a point cloud sequence should be compressed at which bit rate (see figure 1 illustration below):
PNG
media_image6.png
229
525
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
See the motivation for claim 11. It also ensures the data stream does not exceed the available network bandwidth.
[5] Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable for the reasons above.
Muthiah (US 20210400302) discloses a method performed by a control system having a machine vision algorithm, the method comprising:
receiving at least one frame from an encoder (see paragraph 50, the encoder in the video capture unit at the capture point dynamically determines the bit rate based on the current capture compared to the previous capture);
using the machine vision algorithm for detection and classification of one or more objects in the at least one frame (see paragraph 52, It should be noted that any suitable machine leaning model can be used, such as, but not limited to, a region convolutional neural network (R-CNN) and a spatial pyramid pooling network, the R-CNN is read as machine learning algorithm), the machine vision algorithm producing a
PNG
media_image7.png
577
873
media_image7.png
Greyscale
sending an instruction towards the encoder to use a new bit rate or a modification of a current target bit rate based
Riguer (US 20210092424) discloses framerate adjustment unit 302 adjusts the framerate based on the available computing resources in accordance with reprojection scores for those clients. In one example, the framerate adjustment unit 302 considers all reprojection scores for all clients and reduces framerate for those clients that have higher reprojection scores and are more amenable to reprojection (see paragraph 37) but is silent in disclosing the machine vision algorithm producing a score indicating how certain the machine vision algorithm is about the detection and classification of the one or more objects and sending an instruction towards the encoder to use a new bit rate or a modification of a current target bit rate based on the score responsive to one or more objects being detected.
Combining Muthiah and Riguer to form a rejection is improper, as it improperly 'piecemeals' the prior art without providing a sound rationale for combining them.
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shorten 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 shorten statutory period, then the shorten 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 the final action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 7/18/26
Prosecution Insights