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 with respect to claim(s) 43-60 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.
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) 43, 47, 49, 50, 59, 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9838641 B1 Lim; Suk Hwan et al. (hereafter Lim), and further in view of US 20200186816 A1 CROXFORD.
Regarding claim 43, Lim discloses A method for thinning a video comprising a sequence of pictures comprising at least a first picture and a second picture (Fig.2), the method comprising: analyzing one or more pictures in the sequence of pictures using a machine vision task, the one or more pictures including the first picture (col.8 lines 40-43, col.19 lines 47-54, the analyzer is a process using machine version); after analyzing the one or more pictures in the sequence of pictures using the machine vision task, deciding, based on the analysis of the one or more pictures using the machine vision task, whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the first picture of the sequence of pictures (col.3 lines 11-17, discarding first image is thinning process); as a result of deciding to perform the video thinning process on the first picture (Fig.2, Fig.6, col.12 line 51-col.13 line 4), i) encoding the first picture based on the video thinning process to produce a first encoded picture (Fig.6 col.33 lines -10, col.33 lies 28-32, low resolution image is discarded and subsequently compressed) or ii) refraining from encoding the first picture and adding to the bitstream a frame skip syntax element (col.31 lines 57-60).
Lim fails to disclose adding the first encoded picture to a bitstream; deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the second picture of the sequence of pictures; after deciding not to perform a video thinning process on the second picture, encoding the second picture to produce a second encoded picture; and adding the second encoded picture to the bitstream.
However, CROXFORD teaches adding the first encoded picture to a bitstream ([03]); deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on a picture of the sequence of pictures by analyzing at least the first picture using a machine vision task ([93], [111], discarding picture as the thinning process is included in a compression operation or generating stream operation that uses computer vision application); performing a video thinning process on the first picture as a result of deciding to perform a video thinning process (Figs.5A,5B, [102]-[103], frame 11(n+1) is the first dropped/discarded/thinned picture that is a static picture); encoding the first picture based on the video thinning process to produce a first encoded picture ([44]-[45], [93]); adding the first encoded picture to a bitstream ([03], the encoded static pictures combine and encoded non static pictures in combination into bitstream); deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the second picture of the sequence of pictures (Figs.5A, 5B, [102]-[103]); after deciding not to perform a video thinning process on the second picture ([109], frame (m+1) representative of the changing regions is the second frame without being performed a discarding), encoding the second picture to produce a second encoded picture ([46]); and adding the second encoded picture to the bitstream ([03]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD.
Regarding 47, CROXFORD discloses The method of claim 43, wherein the machine vision task which is performed before deciding whether or not to perform the video thinning process is at least one of: an object detection task, an object tracking task, an object segmentation task, or an event detection task ([44]).
Regarding 49, CROXFORD discloses The method of claim 43, wherein deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the first picture comprises obtaining a similarity measure indicating a similarity between the first picture and one or more other first pictures of the video ([30], [98]).
Regarding 50, CROXFORD discloses The method of claim 43, wherein deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the first picture comprises obtaining a similarity measure indicating a similarity between the content of the first picture and the content of one or more other first pictures of the video ([55]).
Regarding 59, CROXFORD discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which when executed by processing circuitry of a video encoding apparatus, causes the video encoding apparatus to perform the method of claim 43 ([117]).
Regarding claim 60, see the rejection for claim 43.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of CROXFORD, and further in view of CN 101252687 A XIE, RONG et al. (hereafter Xie).
Regarding claim 44, Xie teaches The method of claim 43, wherein encoding the first picture based on the video thinning process comprises: Xie teaches encoding the first picture using a quantization parameter (QP) value associated with low priority first pictures that is higher than a QP associated with high priority first pictures; encoding the first picture to produce an encoded first picture having a lower resolution than the encoded first picture produced by encoding the another first picture (P.7 para.1st ); and/or where the first picture comprises a set of luma values and a set of chroma values, setting at least a subset of the luma values to a predetermined luma value and setting at least a subset of the chroma values to a predetermined chroma value.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Lim, CROXFORD and Xie before him/her, to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD and Xie, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD, and realize the panoramic, multi-channel of the region of interest and combine infrared video coding and transmitting of adjusting, as identified by Xie.
Claim(s) 45, 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of CROXFORD, and further in view of CN 115699768 A HENDRY, HENDRY et al. (hereafter HENDRY).
Regarding claim 45, HENDRY teaches The method of any claim 43, wherein deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the first picture comprises determining the picture's picture order count, (POC), and using the POC to decide whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the picture (P.47 para.1st ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Lim, CROXFORD and HENDRY before him/her, to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD and HENDRY, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD, enhance video/image coding efficiency, as identified by HENDRY.
Regarding claim 55, HENDRY teaches The method of claim 43, wherein performing the video thinning process on the picture comprises skipping the picture and skipping the picture comprises encoding a frame skip syntax element into the bitstream (P.35, para.2nd).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of CROXFORD and HENDRY, and further in view of US 20220094962 A1 Choi; Byeongdoo et al. (hereafter Choi).
Regarding claim 46, Choi teaches The method of claim 45, wherein using the POC to decide whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the picture comprises determining whether the POC is a multiple of N, where N is a predefined integer greater than or equal to 2 ([46]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Lim, CROXFORD, HENDRY, and Choi before him/her, to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD, HENDRY and Choi, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD, enhance video/image coding efficiency, as identified by HENDRY, and provide more accurate prediction for video compression, as identified by Choi.
Claim(s) 51-54, 56, 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of CROXFORD, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 51, Choi teaches The method of claim 43, wherein deciding whether or not to perform a video thinning process on the picture comprises using a neural network for determining applicability of the video thinning process to the picture based on a machine vision task ([68]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Lim, CROXFORD, and Choi before him/her, to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD and Choi, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD, and provide more accurate prediction for video compression, as identified by Choi.
Regarding claim 52, Choi teaches The method of claim 43, further comprising encoding one or more syntax elements into the bitstream, wherein the one or more syntax elements specifies an interpolation rule, an extrapolation rule, or a defined trajectory for reconstructing at least one machine vision feature of the picture ([36], [111]).
Regarding claim 53, Choi teaches The method of claim 52, wherein the one or more syntax elements specifying the rule are signaled in a Supplemental Enhancement Information, SEI, message in the bitstream ([109]).
Regarding 54, Choi teaches The method of claim 43, further comprising using a modified group-of-picture, (GOP), size or structure as a result of determining to perform video thinning process on the first picture ([45]).
Regarding 56, Choi teaches The method of claim 43, the method comprises refraining from encoding the first picture and adding to the bitstream a frame skip syntax element as a result of deciding to perform the video thinning process on the first picture. ([125]-[126]).
Regarding 58, Choi teaches The method of claim 43, wherein the picture of the video belongs to a group of pictures, one or more pictures in the group are dependent on the picture, and the method further comprises, as a result of deciding to perform the video thinning process on the picture, performing a video thinning process on each picture included in the group that is dependent on the picture ([126]-[127]).
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of CROXFORD, and further in view of US 20170300780 A1 Baba.
Regarding claim 48, Baba teaches The method of claim 43, wherein the machine vision task is an event detection task, and the event detection task comprises: detection of a new object, detection of a new overlap area between two objects, detection of a previously defined event like object A hitting object B, detection of a previously defined event like object A going outside a defined area in the video frame ([60]-[63]), and/or detection of a change in the predicted trajectory of an object.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Lim, CROXFORD and Baba before him/her, to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD and Baba, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD, be capable of accurately determining whether or not objects detected using a radar and a camera are different object, as identified by Baba.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of CROXFORD and Choi, and further in view of HENDRY.
Regarding claim 57, HENDRY teaches The method of claim 56, wherein the method further comprises, as a result of deciding to perform the video thinning process on the picture, performing a video thinning process on each picture in the group that it associated with a temporal sublayer identifier that is equal to the temporal sublayer identifier of the picture (P.31, para.1st-2nd).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Lim, CROXFORD, Choi and HENDRY, before him/her, to modify the method for thinning a video disclosed by Lim to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of CROXFORD, Choi and HENDRY, in order to provide computationally intensive and energy intensive video process, as identified by CROXFORD, provide more accurate prediction for video compression, as identified by Choi, and enhance video/image coding efficiency, as identified by HENDRY.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights