DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the Response to Election / Restriction filed on 11 MAY 2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 45 and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2024, 05/23/2024, 05/27/2025, and 06/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 27, 31-33, 35, 42, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/025964 A1 (hereinafter “Meardi”).
Regarding claim 27, Meardi discloses a method of encoding a video signal (p. 2, ll. 8-9, “a method of encoding a video signal”) comprising:
obtaining a base encoding of an input video signal (FIG. 1, “Input Video” 100 passes through “Down sampling” and into “Base encoder.” P. 16, ll. 16-17, “A first encoded stream (encoded base stream) is produced by feeding a base coded (e.g., AVC, HEVC, or any other codec) with a down-sampled version of the input video”), the base encoding being encoded using a base encoder to encode the input video signal at a first frame rate (p. 16, ll. 27-28, “A down-sampling operation may be applied to the input video to produce a down-sampled vide to be encoded by a base codec.” P. 13, ll. 6-7, “correct or enhance the base stream for example by increasing resolution or by increasing frame rate.” Note, the frame rate from which it is enhanced from is the first frame rate); and
encoding the input video signal using an enhancement encoder (FIG. 1, “Input Video” 100 passes through “Down sampling,” then first gets enhancement encoded by “L-1 encoding” 115 and subsequently gets enhancement encoded by “L-0 encoding” 121) to generate an enhancement encoding of the input video signal at a second frame rate (p. 13, ll. 5-7, “An enhancement stream is formed using an encoded set of residuals which correct or enhance the base stream for example by increasing resolution or by increasing frame rate.” Note, the claim does not differentiate the frame rate between the base encoding and the enhancement encoding), the enhancement encoder encoding the input video signal using at least a set of frames derived from the base encoding (FIG. 1, element 110. P. 17, ll. 7-10, “The difference between the decoded base stream and the down-sampled input video is then created 110 (i.e. a subtraction operation is applied to the down-sampled input video and the decoded base stream to generate a first set of residuals.” P. 17, l. 13 defines residual as, “the error between a reference frame and a desired frame.” Note, the residual created is part of the enhancement encoding between frames of the base encoding and enhancement encoding).
Regarding claim 31, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses wherein the base encoding is at a first resolution (p. 16, ll. 16-18, “A first encoded stream (encoded base stream) is produced by feeding a base codec (e.g., AVC, HEVC, or any other codec) with a down-sampled version of the input video.” P. 16, ll. 28-29, “The down-sampling can be done either in both vertical and horizontal direction”) and the enhancement encoding is at a second resolution (p. 16, ll. 19-25, “A second encoded stream (encoded level 1 stream) is produced by processing the residuals obtained by taking the difference between the reconstructed base codec video and the down-sampled version of the input video. A third encoded stream (encoded level 0 stream) is produced by processing the residuals obtained by taking the difference between an up-sampled version of a corrected version of the reconstructed base codec video and the input video.” P. 13, ll. 6-7, “enhance the base stream for example by increasing resolution”), the second resolution being higher than the first resolution (FIG. 1, “Up-sampling” 117. P. 16, ll. 22-25, “A third encoded stream (encoded level 0 stream) is produced by processing the residuals obtained by taking the difference between an up-sampled version of a corrected version of the reconstructed base coded video and the input video.” P. 13, ll. 6-7, “enhance the base stream for example by increasing resolution”).
Regarding claim 32, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses wherein the enhancement encoding comprises two sublayers (FIG. 1, “L-0 encoding” 121 and “L-1 encoding” 115. P. 16, ll. 13-14, “two levels of enhancement within an enhancement stream, an example of a generalised encoding process is depicted int he block diagram of Figure 1”), a first sub-layer comprising residuals at the first resolution and a second sublayer comprising residuals at the second resolution (p. 16, ll. 19-25, “A second encoded stream (encoded level 1 stream) is produced by processing the residuals obtained by taking the difference between the reconstructed base codec video and the down-sampled version of the input video. A third encoded stream (encoded level 0 stream) is produced by processing the residuals obtained by taking the difference between an up-sampled version of a corrected version of the reconstructed base codec video and the input video.” Note, FIG. 1 illustrates only “L-0 encoding” 121 has undergone the “Up sampling” 117 to the resolution).
Regarding claim 33, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses wherein the base encoding is at a first level of quality and the enhancement encoding is at a second level of quality, the second level of quality being higher than the first level quality (p. 19, ll. 15-20, “The video compression residual data for the full-sized video frame may be referred to as LoQ-0 (e.g. 1920 x 1080 for an HD video frame), while that of the decimated frame may be referred to as LoQ-x, where x denotes the number of hierarchical decimations. In the described examples of Figures 1 and 2, the variable x has a maximum value of 1 and hence there are 2 hierarchical levels for which compression residuals will be generated.” Note, in FIG. 1 only “Encoded level 0 stream” 103 is a LoQ-0, whereas “Encoded base stream” 101 and “Encoded level 1 stream” 102 share the down-sampled resolution from “Down sampling” and are therefore LoQ-1).
Regarding claim 35, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses comprises: transmitting the enhancement encoding at the second frame rate to a decoder (FIG. 1 depicts outputting “Encoded level 0 stream” 103 at the second frame rate and FIG. 2 depicts receiving the “Encoded level 0 stream” 103 for decoding at “L-0 decoding.” P. 18, ll. 9-10, “the output of the encoding process is a base stream 101 and one or more enhancement streams 102, 103.” P. 18, ll. 15-16, “The decoder receives the three streams 101, 102, 103 generated by the encoder together with headers containing further decoding information”).
Regarding claim 42, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses wherein the base encoder is any one of a WC, HEVC, SHVC, SWC encoder (p. 13, l. 1, “a base codec, (e.g., AVC, HEVC, or any other present or future codec)”).
Regarding claim 43, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses wherein the enhancement encoder generates a MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC (“Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding”) compatible enhancement encoding (p. 14, ll. 10-13, “This present document preferably fulfils the requirements of the following ISO/IEC documents: “Call for Proposals for Low Complexity Video Coding Enhancements.”” Note, MPEG-5 includes two parts, Part 1 is called Essential Video Coding (EVC) and Part 2 is called Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding (LCEVC). Meardi’s disclosure describes complying with LCEVC, which is MPEG-5 Part 2).
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 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) 28-30, 34, 36, and claim 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/025964 A1 (hereinafter “Meardi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0356926 A1 (hereinafter “Tsukagoshi”).
Regarding claim 28, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses comprising: obtaining the base encoding at the first frame rate (p. 16, ll. 16-18, “A first encoded stream (encoded base stream) is produced by feeding a base codec (e.g., AVC, HEVC, or any other codec) with a down-sampled version of the input video.” P. 13, ll. 6-7, “correct or enhance the base stream for example by increasing resolution or by increasing frame rate.” Note, the frame rate from which it is enhanced from is the first frame rate);
encoding the input video signal at the first frame rate using the enhancement encoder to generate the enhancement encoding (p. 16, ll. 19-22, “A second encoded stream (encoded level 1 stream) is produced by processing the residuals obtained by taking the difference between the reconstructed base codec video and the down-sampled version of the input video.” FIG. 1 depicts “L-1 encoding” 115 to be encoding at the same frame rate as “Base encoder,” because it is prior to the “Up sampling” 117), the enhancement encoder using base encoding at the first frame rate (FIG. 1 depicts “L-1 encoding” 115 to be encoding at the same frame rate as “Base encoder,” because it is prior to the “Up sampling” 117)
.
Meardi fails to expressly disclose selecting a subset of frames of the enhancement encoding to obtain the enhancement encoding at the second frame rate,
the second frame rate being lower than the first frame rate.
However, Tsukagoshi teaches selecting a subset of frames of the enhancement encoding to obtain the enhancement encoding at the second frame rate (FIG. 2 discloses base layer including sublayers sublayer1 and sublayer2, and enhancement layer including sublayers sublayer3 and sublayer4. The enhancement layer sublayer 3 includes a subset of frames (i.e., 1, 3, and 7)),
the second frame rate being lower than the first frame rate (FIG. 2, sublayers 1 and 3 support a frame rate of 60Hz and sublayers 2 and 4 support a frame rate of 120Hz).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have multiple base layer streams for supporting multiple frame rates with corresponding higher resolution enhancement layers, as taught by Tsukagoshi (FIG. 2), in Meardi’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi’s disclosure, by incorporating Tsukagoshi’s disclosure, to improve coding efficiency in encoding and transmitting image data of a base layer and an enhancement layer (Tsukagoshi: [0005]).
Regarding claim 29, Meardi and Tsukagoshi disclose every limitation of claim 28, as outlined above. Additionally, Tsukagoshi discloses comprising: selecting a subset of frames of the base encoding to obtain the base encoding at the second frame rate (FIG. 2, base layer sublayer1 includes subset frames 0, 2, and 6 out of the base layer frames 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8). The same motivation of claim 28 applies to claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Meardi fails to expressly disclose comprising: obtaining the base encoding at the first frame rate;
selecting a subset of frames of the base encoding to obtain the base encoding at the second frame rate; and
encoding the input video signal using the enhancement encoder to generate the enhancement encoding of the input video signal at the second frame rate, the enhancement encoder using the base encoding at the second frame rate,
the second frame rate being lower than the first frame rate.
However, Tsukagoshi teaches comprising: obtaining the base encoding at the first frame rate (FIG. 2, base layer sublayer2. Note, the combination with Meardi is the addition of a second base layer that is different from the first base layer by a temporal difference (i.e., frame rate));
selecting a subset of frames of the base encoding to obtain the base encoding at the second frame rate (FIG. 2, base layer sublayer1 includes subset frames 0, 2, and 6 out of frames 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8); and
encoding the input video signal using the enhancement encoder to generate the enhancement encoding of the input video signal at the second frame rate (FIG. 2, enhancement layer sublayer3 has the same frame rate as sublayer1. Note, in combination with Meardi the sublayer3 corresponds to the “L-1 encoding” 115), the enhancement encoder using the base encoding at the second frame rate (FIG. 2, enhancement layer sublayer3 has the same frame rate as sublayer 1, with frame 0 being predicted from frame 1, frame 4 from frame 2, and frame 7 from 6. Note, in combination with Meardi the sublayer3 corresponds to the “L-1 encoding” 115 and the sublayer1 corresponds to the “Base encoder”),
the second frame rate being lower than the first frame rate (FIG. 2, the temporal level of sublayer1 and sublayer3 are for 60Hz and the temporal level of sublayer2 and sublayer4 are for 120Hz).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have multiple base layer streams for supporting multiple frame rates with corresponding higher resolution enhancement layers, as taught by Tsukagoshi (FIG. 2), in Meardi’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi’s disclosure, by incorporating Tsukagoshi’s disclosure, to improve coding efficiency in encoding and transmitting image data of a base layer and an enhancement layer (Tsukagoshi: [0005]).
Regarding claim 34, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Meardi discloses comprising: outputting an enhancement encoding at both the first frame rate and the second frame rate for pairing with respective base encoding (FIG. 1 discloses “Encoded level 1 stream” 102 and “Encoded level 0 stream” 103 as the enhancement encoding at the first frame rate and the second frame rate. Additionally, FIG. 1 discloses the “Encoded base stream” 101 at the first frame rate. P. 16, ll. 27-28, “A down-sampling operation may be applied to the input video to produce a down-sampled vide to be encoded by a base codec.” P. 13, ll. 6-7, “correct or enhance the base stream for example by increasing resolution or by increasing frame rate”).
Meardi fails to expressly disclose base encodings at the first frame rate and the second frame rate.
However, Tsukagoshi teaches base encodings at the first frame rate and the second frame rate (FIG. 2 depicts base layer including sublayer1 and sublayer2, with sublayer1 having the same frame rate as the enhancement sublayer3, and with sublayer2 having the same frame rate as the enhancement sublayer4. FIG. 4 packetizes the base layer and enhancement layer at “system encoder” 103 for transmitting at “transmission unit” 104).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have multiple base layer streams, as taught by Tsukagoshi (FIG. 2), in Meardi’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi’s disclosure, by incorporating Tsukagoshi’s disclosure, to improve coding efficiency in encoding and transmitting image data of a base layer and an enhancement layer (Tsukagoshi: [0005]).
Regarding claim 36, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 35, as outlined above. Meardi fails to expressly disclose comprising: arranging for the transmission of the base encoding at the second frame rate to the decoder.
However, Tsukagoshi teaches comprising: arranging for the transmission of the base encoding at the second frame rate to the decoder (FIG. 2 depicts two sublayers encoded at the base layer, the second sublayer is sublayer2 with the frame rate of enhancement layer sublayer4. FIG. 4 depicts “encoding unit” 102b for encoding the base layer and transmitting at transmission unit 104).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have multiple base layer streams, as taught by Tsukagoshi (FIG. 2), in Meardi’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi’s disclosure, by incorporating Tsukagoshi’s disclosure, to improve coding efficiency in encoding and transmitting image data of a base layer and an enhancement layer (Tsukagoshi: [0005]).
Regarding claim 44, the limitations are the same as those in claims 27 and 30. Therefore, the same rationale for claims 27 and 30 applies equally to claim 44. Additionally, Tsukagoshi discloses wherein the first set of encoded frames comprises one or more droppable frames, where said droppable frames are frames that can be removed from the first set of encoded frames without preventing decoding of any unremoved frames of the first set of encoded frames (FIG. 2, base layer sublayer2 is a higher temporal level than base layer sublayer1, which indicates sublayer2’s dependency on sublayer1 by the solid arrow. [0061], “an arrow represents an example of a reference relationship of pictures in prediction coding processing, a solid line represents a reference relationship in a layer.” Note, base layer sublayer1 does not include any arrows (i.e., prediction dependency) towards sublayer2 and therefore sublayer1 is the ”unremoved frames of the first set of encoded frames”). The same motivation of claim 30 applies to claim 44.
Claim(s) 37, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/025964 A1 (hereinafter “Meardi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0322656 A1 (hereinafter “Reitmeier”).
Regarding claim 37, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Meardi fails to expressly disclose comprising: configuring the base encoder such that a ratio between the first frame rate and second frame rate is a power of 2.
However, Reitmeier teaches comprising: configuring the base encoder such that a ratio between the first frame rate and second frame rate is a power of 2 ([0028], “The base layer has a GOP length 606 of 15 frames, while the enhanced layer 604 includes a GOP length 608 of 30 frames.” Note, 60/30 by 2, which is the result of 21. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes the ratio being any real number as 2x can produce any real number, given the restriction the ratio is not greater than 0).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a ratio between frame rates that is a power of 2, as taught by Reitmeier ([0028]), in Meardi’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi’s disclosure, by incorporating Reitmeir’s disclosure, to improve efficiency of coding (Reitmeier: [0002]) and because it is a simple substitution of frame rates between layers with predictable results between base layer quality and enhancement layer quality (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 39, Meardi and Reitmeier disclose every limitation of claim 37, as outlined above. Additionally, Reitmeier discloses comprising: configuring the base encoder to generate one or more groups of pictures ([0028], “The base layer has a GOP length 606 of 15 frames.” FIG. 6, BL 602 with GOP 606 having frames IBBPBBPBBPBBPBB), each group of pictures comprising: an intra coded frame ([0003], “intra-coded frames (I-frames).” FIG. 6, GOP 606, first frame is an I-frame), followed by one or more sets of single B frame (FIG. 6, GOP 606 consists of the format IBBP with two B-frames proceeding the I-frame), followed by a single P frame (FIG. 6, GOP 606 consists of the format IBBP with a single P-frame proceeding the two B-frames). The same motivation of claim 37 applies to claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, the limitations are the same as those in claim 39. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 39 applies equally to claim 40. Note, the same rationale of 2x applies to 3x, as any resulting real number is possible.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/025964 A1 (hereinafter “Meardi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0322656 A1 (hereinafter “Reitmeier”), and U.S. Publication No. 2009/0067493 A1 (hereinafter “Jun”).
Regarding claim 38, Meardi and Reitmeier disclose every limitation of claim 37, as outlined above. Meardi and Reitmeier fail to expressly disclose comprising: configuring the base encoder to generate encoded frames having hierarchical B frames. Note, “hierarchical B frames” means B-frames that are at different temporal levels and therefore depend on each other after the lower temporal B-frames have been processed. Reitmeier’s disclosure of FIG. 2 shows both B frames depending on the I and P frame, meaning that they are at the same temporal level and therefore not “hierarchical B frames.”
However, Jun teaches comprising: configuring the base encoder to generate encoder frames having hierarchical B frames ([0024], “a spatial base layer is compatible with H.264/AVC, temporal scalability is achieved by using a hierarchical B picture method.” In combination with Reitmeier’s teachings, the B-frames are simply staggered to different temporal layers. As an example, if the I-frame is temporal level 0 and the P-frame is temporal level 1, then the first B-frame can be temporal level 2 while the second B-frame can be temporal level 3, instead of both B-frames being temporal level 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used hierarchical B-frames, as taught by Jun ([0024]), in Meardi and Reitmeier’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi and Reitmeier’s disclosure, by incorporating Jun’s disclosure, to improve quality by allowing B-frames to be predicted from closer temporal frames and because it’s an obvious simple substitution of order processing of frames to obtain predictable results (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/025964 A1 (hereinafter “Meardi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0347163 A1 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 41, Meardi discloses every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Meardi fails to expressly disclose comprising: disabling a temporal buffer available to the enhancement encoder ([0103], “The BL is coded the same as in SLPD#1, while the Els are coded similarly as in SLPD#1 but with temporal inter prediction (TIP) disabled.” Note, the instant application in p. 26 states, “to disable a temporal buffer for the sub-layer 2 residuals (e.g., set a flag to deactivate the “temporal mode” in LCEVC).” For this reason, the claim is interpreted disabling a temporal mode, which will cause the associated buffer to not be used (i.e., disabled). The rejection combines Wang with Meardi’s teachings that implement LCVCE, and LCVCE utilizes temporal buffers for temporal predictive techniques, see IDS dated 06/11/2025, NPL#1, Section 7.4.3.4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have disabled temporal components of an enhancement layer, as taught by Wang ([0103]), in Meardi’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Meardi’s disclosure, by incorporating Wang’s disclosure, because it is an obvious use of a known technique of preventing inter prediction to improve a similar method in the same way (see MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2011/0182354 A1 (“Jang”) – Discloses enhancement layers with a lower frame rate than a base layer and at a higher resolution than the base layer. See Jang, ¶ [0014].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights