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 Amendments
Applicant’s remarks, see page 7, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 9 for minor informalities, submitted in the non-final office action dated 04/08/2026, has been fully considered and is persuasive. Thus, the objection to claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-12 have been fully 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, see page 7, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to claims 2 and 8 reciting limitations with functional language that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant states on page 7, “The Examiner interpreted the terms “reference device” and “test device” in claims 2 and 8 as invoking means plus function language. The applicant respectfully disagrees. The term “device” is clearly a reference to structure, and the addition of the adjectives “reference” and “test” merely indicate the relative relationship between the two. Thus, these terms are no different from reciting e.g., a “first member” and a “second member” in a claim.” The Office would like to bring to applicant’s attention that claims 2 and 8 are said to recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 2 and 8 recite the limitation, “the reference video is stored on a reference device and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the “reference device” is modified by the function of storing the reference video, and the test device is modified by the function of recording a playback on the test device and testing the test video on the test device. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 2 and 8 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 2; recites the limitation, “the reference video is stored on a reference device and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device…,” [Lines 1-2].
Claim 8; recites the limitation, “the reference video is stored on a reference device and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device…,” [Lines 1-2].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 2 and 8:
“a reference device” (Fig. 1, #102 called a reference device, Paragraph [0033] – “In a non-limiting embodiment, the environment 100 may include a reference device 102, a test device 104, and an apparatus 114. The reference device 102 may comprise a smartphone, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet device or any other type of computing device suitable for playing media content, for example video.” Thus, the reference device does have a sufficient structure associated with it wherein it is a computer or computing device.
“a test device” (Fig. 1, #104 called a test device, Paragraph [0033] – “In a non-limiting embodiment, the environment 100 may include a reference device 102, a test device 104, and an apparatus 114. The test device 104 may include a smartphone, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet device or any other type of computing device capable of delivering content services (e.g., video) to a user.” Thus, the test device does have a sufficient structure associated with it wherein it is a computer or computing device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), hereinafter referenced as CHENG in view of LIU (US 20240212118 A1), hereinafter referenced as LIU in further view of SONG (US 20210124668 A1), hereinafter referenced as SONG.
Regarding claim 1, CHENG teaches a method (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0012] – CHENG discloses according to one embodiment, the present invention is a method for identifying correspondence between an original video sequence comprising a plurality of original frames and a processed video sequence comprising a plurality of processed frames.) comprising:
receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of test frames and a plurality of reference frames, respectively (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0012] – CHENG discloses a method for identifying correspondence between an original video sequence [wherein an original video sequence is a reference video] comprising a plurality of original frames and a processed video sequence [wherein a processed video sequence is a test video] comprising a plurality of processed frames.),
comparing each of the plurality of test frames with each of the plurality of reference frames (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0087-0088] – CHENG discloses the processed video sequence is analyzed frame-by-frame from the first frame 0 to the last frame M (steps 502 and 508). For each processed frame, a minimized local prediction error is generated for each of one or more different sets of one or more original frames that could correspond to the current processed frame (step 504).);
and generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0090] – CHENG discloses after the entire processed video sequence has been processed, there will be a number of different possible paths identified that map the original video sequence to the processed video sequence. The path having the smallest accumulated prediction error is selected as the optimal mapping of the original sequence to the processed sequence, where the path can be traced back to identify the frame-by-frame mapping between the original sequence and the processed sequence (step 510). In this way, the entire processed video sequence can be registered with respect to the original video sequence at the frame level.),
and performing, based on the comparing (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0012] – CHENG discloses identifying correspondence between an original video sequence comprising a plurality of original frames and a processed video sequence comprising a plurality of processed frames.), at least one of:
whenever the set of subsequent test frames visually matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, updating the synchronized output list by adding the set of subsequent test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0087] – CHENG discloses the processed video sequence is analyzed frame-by-frame from the first frame 0 to the last frame M (steps 502 and 508). Paragraph [0090] – CHENG discloses the path having the smallest accumulated prediction error is selected as the optimal mapping of the original sequence to the processed sequence, where the path can be traced back to identify the frame-by-frame mapping between the original sequence and the processed sequence (step 510). In this way, the entire processed video sequence can be registered with respect to the original video sequence at the frame level.);
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match with the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0042] – LIU discloses at 608, frame matching process 502 determines if a matching pair is found. If not, the process reiterates to 604 where another frame FD in the degraded video is selected. See also Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045].);
and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0042] – LIU discloses at 608, frame matching process 502 determines if a matching pair is found. If not, the process reiterates to 604 where another frame FD in the degraded video is selected. If a matching pair has been found, frame matching process 502 adds a frame FS from the source video that matches the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the source video VS’. Also, frame matching process 502 adds the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the degraded video VD’. The process then reiterates to 602, where frame matching process 502 determines if all frames in the degraded video have been processed. When all frames have been processed, frame matching process 502 may then be ended. See also Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045].);
and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match with the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0042] – LIU discloses at 608, frame matching process 502 determines if a matching pair is found. If not, the process reiterates to 604 where another frame FD in the degraded video is selected. If a matching pair has been found, frame matching process 502 adds a frame FS from the source video that matches the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the source video VS’. Also, frame matching process 502 adds the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the degraded video VD’. The process then reiterates to 602, where frame matching process 502 determines if all frames in the degraded video have been processed. When all frames have been processed, frame matching process 502 may then be ended. See also Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045].);
and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045] – LIU discloses an out of order variation of frames in the degraded video may also be accounted for by rearranging the frame numbers in the new versions of the source video. For example, when frames are out of order, the new version of the degraded video may be kept out of order in the new version of the degraded video, but in other examples, the new version of the degraded video may reorder the frames.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of test frames and a plurality of reference frames, respectively, comparing each of the plurality of test frames with each of the plurality of reference frames; and generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, and performing, based on the comparing, at least one of: whenever the set of subsequent test frames visually matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, updating the synchronized output list by adding the set of subsequent test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence; with the teachings of LIU of having wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match with the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match with the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
CHENG in view of LIU fail to explicitly teach the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video;
However, SONG explicitly teaches the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video (Fig. , Paragraph [0017] – SONG discloses the user will be presented with pre-recorded videos of content from the corresponding systems to those that fit the filters that the user selected. Content is identical segments of the same game recorded on different systems. The videos are recorded using the same software (Streamlabs OBS) and are edited to start and end at the same time with the same editing software (Lightworks video editor).);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG in view of LIU of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of test frames and a plurality of reference frames, respectively, comparing each of the plurality of test frames with each of the plurality of reference frames; and generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and performing, based on the comparing, at least one of: whenever the set of subsequent test frames visually matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, updating the synchronized output list by adding the set of subsequent test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match with the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence, with the teachings of SONG having the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video;
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein having the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video;
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and allows users to easily compare video performance through visual inspection, since both CHENG and SONG relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and SONG is directed to the use of simultaneous side-by-side video replay comparing identical video segments of identical games under different PC system compositions; using side-by-side video comparisons of identical segments of identical games provides the most accurate, yet not infallible, comparison of gaming performance, which will lead to the most accurate information possible for the user to choose the system they want to purchase. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and SONG (US 20210124668 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0008].
Regarding claim 2, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the method of claim 1,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0073] – LIU discloses video streaming system 900 may include one or more computer servers or modules 902, 904, and 907 distributed over one or more computers. Each server 902, 904, 907 may include, or may be operatively coupled to, one or more data stores 909, for example databases, indexes, files, or other data structures. A video content server 902 may access a data store (not shown) of various video segments.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of LIU having wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
CHENG in view of LIU fail to explicitly teach and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.
However, SONG explicitly teaches and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested (Fig. 3A-B, Paragraph [0002] – SONG discloses videos will contain identical video game segments, which we define as segments starting from and ending at the exact same instances in the same video game; the videos will have the same contents when played side by side. The only differences between these videos will be that footage on each will be recorded by a different gaming PC system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of SONG having and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein having and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and allows users to easily compare video performance through visual inspection, since both CHENG and SONG relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and SONG is directed to the use of simultaneous side-by-side video replay comparing identical video segments of identical games under different PC system compositions; using side-by-side video comparisons of identical segments of identical games provides the most accurate, yet not infallible, comparison of gaming performance, which will lead to the most accurate information possible for the user to choose the system they want to purchase. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and SONG (US 20210124668 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0008].
Regarding claim 3, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the method of claim 1,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach further comprising: analyzing the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric, wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric, a visual information metric, a loss metric and a pixel metric; and generating a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames.
However, LIU explicitly teaches further comprising: analyzing the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0016] – LIU discloses video quality process may compare frames of the source video and the degraded video to determine a score. The score may quantify the quality (e.g., fidelity) of the degraded video compared to the source video.),
wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
a visual information metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
a loss metric and a pixel metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0060] – LIU discloses root mean square error (RMSE) measures the amount of change per pixel between the frame of the source video and the frame of the degraded video.);
and generating a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0016] – LIU discloses the video quality process may compare frames of the source video and the degraded video to determine a score. The score may quantify the quality (e.g., fidelity) of the degraded video compared to the source video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, with the teachings of LIU having further comprising: analyzing the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric, wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric, a visual information metric, a loss metric and a pixel metric; and generating a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein further comprising: analyzing the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric, wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric, a visual information metric, a loss metric and a pixel metric; and generating a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 4, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the method of claim 1,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame, wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity, Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity, and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0064] – LIU discloses a threshold may be used where the matching score is compared to the threshold. If the matching score meets the threshold (e.g., is equal or above the threshold), then a match may be determined. Paragraph [0066] – LIU further discloses the soft threshold may be first set to a value, such as a predefined value.),
wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; comparing each of the plurality of test frames with teach of the plurality of reference frames; and generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, with the teachings of LIU having wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame, wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity, Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity, and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame, wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity, Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity, and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 5, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the method of claim 1,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, comprises, at least one of, updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame; and updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, comprises, at least one of, updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0039] – LIU discloses frame matching condition may determine matching frames for the video quality process from the source video and the degraded video. This may take into account variations that occurred in the degraded video, such as frame dropping, duplicate frames, or out of order frames. Then, a video quality process 110 may analyze corresponding frames in the new version of the source video and the new version of the degraded video frame by frame, such as sequentially. Paragraph [0041] – LIU discloses if no frame exists in the searched frames from the source video, then matching process 502 may indicate that this frame in the degraded video has no match. This frame in the degraded video may not be included in a new version of the degraded video.);
and updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0039] – LIU discloses frame matching condition may determine matching frames for the video quality process from the source video and the degraded video. This may take into account variations that occurred in the degraded video, such as frame dropping, duplicate frames, or out of order frames. Then, a video quality process 110 may analyze corresponding frames in the new version of the source video and the new version of the degraded video frame by frame, such as sequentially. Paragraph [0045] – LIU discloses the sequence of the new version of the degraded video may be different. For example, although not shown, an out of order variation of frames in the degraded video may also be accounted for by rearranging the frame numbers in the new versions of the source video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; comparing each of the plurality of test frames with teach of the plurality of reference frames; and generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, with the teachings of LIU having wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, comprises, at least one of, updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame; and updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, comprises, at least one of, updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame; and updating the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 6, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the method of claim 1,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0032] – LIU discloses source video frames #0 to #7 are shown, but other video frames may be found in the source video. At 204, the degraded video also includes degraded video frames #0 to #7, but other frames may be included.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having a method comprising: receiving a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; comparing each of the plurality of test frames with teach of the plurality of reference frames; and generating a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, with the teachings of LIU having wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames.
Wherein CHENG’s method wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 7, CHENG teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0094] – CHENG discloses the present invention can be embodied in the form of methods and apparatuses for practicing those methods.) comprising:
a memory (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0094] – CHENG discloses the present invention can be embodied in the form of methods and apparatuses for practicing those methods. The present invention can also be embodied in the form of program code embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention.);
and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0094] – CHENG discloses the present invention can also be embodied in the form of program code embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention. When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the program code segments combine with the processor to provide a unique device that operates analogously to specific logic circuits.) and configured to:
receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of test frames and a plurality of reference frames, respectively (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0012] – CHENG discloses a method for identifying correspondence between an original video sequence [wherein an original video sequence is a reference video] comprising a plurality of original frames and a processed video sequence [wherein a processed video sequence is a test video] comprising a plurality of processed frames.),
compare each of the plurality of test frames with each of the plurality of reference frames (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0087-0088] – CHENG discloses the processed video sequence is analyzed frame-by-frame from the first frame 0 to the last frame M (steps 502 and 508). For each processed frame, a minimized local prediction error is generated for each of one or more different sets of one or more original frames that could correspond to the current processed frame (step 504).);
and generate a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0090] – CHENG discloses after the entire processed video sequence has been processed, there will be a number of different possible paths identified that map the original video sequence to the processed video sequence. The path having the smallest accumulated prediction error is selected as the optimal mapping of the original sequence to the processed sequence, where the path can be traced back to identify the frame-by-frame mapping between the original sequence and the processed sequence (step 510). In this way, the entire processed video sequence can be registered with respect to the original video sequence at the frame level.),
and performing, based on the comparing (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0012] – CHENG discloses identifying correspondence between an original video sequence comprising a plurality of original frames and a processed video sequence comprising a plurality of processed frames.), at least one of:
whenever the set of subsequent test frames visually matches the set of subsequent reference frames, updating the synchronized output list by adding the set of subsequent test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0087] – CHENG discloses the processed video sequence is analyzed frame-by-frame from the first frame 0 to the last frame M (steps 502 and 508). Paragraph [0090] – CHENG discloses the path having the smallest accumulated prediction error is selected as the optimal mapping of the original sequence to the processed sequence, where the path can be traced back to identify the frame-by-frame mapping between the original sequence and the processed sequence (step 510). In this way, the entire processed video sequence can be registered with respect to the original video sequence at the frame level.);
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0042] – LIU discloses at 608, frame matching process 502 determines if a matching pair is found. If not, the process reiterates to 604 where another frame FD in the degraded video is selected. See also Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045].);
and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0042] – LIU discloses at 608, frame matching process 502 determines if a matching pair is found. If not, the process reiterates to 604 where another frame FD in the degraded video is selected. If a matching pair has been found, frame matching process 502 adds a frame FS from the source video that matches the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the source video VS’. Also, frame matching process 502 adds the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the degraded video VD’. The process then reiterates to 602, where frame matching process 502 determines if all frames in the degraded video have been processed. When all frames have been processed, frame matching process 502 may then be ended. See also Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045].);
and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0042] – LIU discloses at 608, frame matching process 502 determines if a matching pair is found. If not, the process reiterates to 604 where another frame FD in the degraded video is selected. If a matching pair has been found, frame matching process 502 adds a frame FS from the source video that matches the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the source video VS’. Also, frame matching process 502 adds the frame FD in the degraded video to a new version of the degraded video VD’. The process then reiterates to 602, where frame matching process 502 determines if all frames in the degraded video have been processed. When all frames have been processed, frame matching process 502 may then be ended. See also Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045].);
and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0045] – LIU discloses an out of order variation of frames in the degraded video may also be accounted for by rearranging the frame numbers in the new versions of the source video. For example, when frames are out of order, the new version of the degraded video may be kept out of order in the new version of the degraded video, but in other examples, the new version of the degraded video may reorder the frames.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of test frames and a plurality of reference frames, respectively, compare each of the plurality of test frames with each of the plurality of reference frames; and generate a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, and performing, based on the comparing, at least one of: whenever the set of subsequent test frames visually matches the set of subsequent reference frames, updating the synchronized output list by adding the set of subsequent test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence; with the teachings of LIU having wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
CHENG in view of LIU fail to explicitly teach the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video;
However, SONG explicitly teaches the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video (Fig. , Paragraph [0017] – SONG discloses the user will be presented with pre-recorded videos of content from the corresponding systems to those that fit the filters that the user selected. Content is identical segments of the same game recorded on different systems. The videos are recorded using the same software (Streamlabs OBS) and are edited to start and end at the same time with the same editing software (Lightworks video editor).);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG in view of LIU of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of test frames and a plurality of reference frames, respectively, compare each of the plurality of test frames with each of the plurality of reference frames; and generate a synchronized output list having one or more test frames until each test frame of the plurality of test frames visually matches each reference frame of the plurality of reference frames in a sequential order, wherein the method further comprises performing, whenever a test frame of the plurality of test frames fails to visually match a reference frame of the plurality of reference frames: shifting at least one of an unmatched test frame among remaining test frames and an unmatched reference frame among remaining reference frames; and comparing a set of subsequent test frames of the remaining test frames with a set of subsequent reference frames of the remaining reference frames after shifting the at least one of the unmatched test frame and the unmatched reference frame; and performing, based on the comparing, at least one of: whenever the set of subsequent test frames visually matches the set of subsequent reference frames, updating the synchronized output list by adding the set of subsequent test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence; and whenever the set of subsequent test frames fails to visually match the set of subsequent reference frames, comparing each of the remaining test frames with each of the remaining reference frames; and updating the synchronized output list by adding the remaining test frames with the one or more test frames in a sequence, with the teachings of SONG having the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video;
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein having the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video;
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and allows users to easily compare video performance through visual inspection, since both CHENG and SONG relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and SONG is directed to the use of simultaneous side-by-side video replay comparing identical video segments of identical games under different PC system compositions; using side-by-side video comparisons of identical segments of identical games provides the most accurate, yet not infallible, comparison of gaming performance, which will lead to the most accurate information possible for the user to choose the system they want to purchase. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and SONG (US 20210124668 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0008].
Regarding claim 8, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the apparatus of claim 7,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0073] – LIU discloses video streaming system 900 may include one or more computer servers or modules 902, 904, and 907 distributed over one or more computers. Each server 902, 904, 907 may include, or may be operatively coupled to, one or more data stores 909, for example databases, indexes, files, or other data structures. A video content server 902 may access a data store (not shown) of various video segments.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of LIU having wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein the reference video is stored on a reference device.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
CHENG in view of LIU fail to explicitly teach and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.
However, SONG explicitly teaches and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested (Fig. 3A-B, Paragraph [0002] – SONG discloses videos will contain identical video game segments, which we define as segments starting from and ending at the exact same instances in the same video game; the videos will have the same contents when played side by side. The only differences between these videos will be that footage on each will be recorded by a different gaming PC system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of SONG having and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein having and the test video is generated by recording a playback of the reference video on a test device on which the test video is to be tested.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and allows users to easily compare video performance through visual inspection, since both CHENG and SONG relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and SONG is directed to the use of simultaneous side-by-side video replay comparing identical video segments of identical games under different PC system compositions; using side-by-side video comparisons of identical segments of identical games provides the most accurate, yet not infallible, comparison of gaming performance, which will lead to the most accurate information possible for the user to choose the system they want to purchase. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and SONG (US 20210124668 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0008].
Regarding claim 9, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the apparatus of claim 7,
Although CHENG further teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0094] – CHENG discloses when implemented on a general-purpose processor, the program code segments combine with the processor to provide a unique device that operates analogously to specific logic circuits.) is further configured to:
CHENG fails to explicitly teach analyze the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric, wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric, a visual information metric, a loss metric and a pixel metric; and generate a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames.
However, LIU explicitly teaches analyze the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0016] – LIU discloses video quality process may compare frames of the source video and the degraded video to determine a score. The score may quantify the quality (e.g., fidelity) of the degraded video compared to the source video.),
wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
a visual information metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
a loss metric and a pixel metric (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0060] – LIU discloses root mean square error (RMSE) measures the amount of change per pixel between the frame of the source video and the frame of the degraded video.);
and generate a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0016] – LIU discloses the video quality process may compare frames of the source video and the degraded video to determine a score. The score may quantify the quality (e.g., fidelity) of the degraded video compared to the source video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of LIU having analyze the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric, wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric, a visual information metric, a loss metric and a pixel metric; and generate a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein having analyze the synchronized output list comprising a plurality of synchronized test frames with corresponding reference frame from the plurality of reference frames based on a quality metric, wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of, a structural similarity metric, a visual information metric, a loss metric and a pixel metric; and generate a quality report comprising a set of synchronized test frames from the plurality of synchronized test frames.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 10, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the apparatus of claim 7,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame, wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity, Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity, and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0064] – LIU discloses a threshold may be used where the matching score is compared to the threshold. If the matching score meets the threshold (e.g., is equal or above the threshold), then a match may be determined. Paragraph [0066] – LIU further discloses the soft threshold may be first set to a value, such as a predefined value.),
wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)),
and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0050] – LIU discloses similarity metrics may be selected to account for different variations that may occur in the degradation process. In some embodiments, the following metrics may be used, but other metrics may be appreciated: [0051] Root mean square error (RMSE), [0052] Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), [0053] Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), [0054] Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), [0055] Feature-based similarity index (FSIM), [0056] Information theoretic-based Statistic Similarity Measure (ISSM), [0057] Signal to reconstruction error ratio (SRE), [0058] Spectral angle mapper (SAM), [0059] Universal image quality index (UIQ)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of LIU having wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame, wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity, Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity, and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein the comparing is based on a pre-defined similarity score indicative of a similarity of a test frame with a reference frame, wherein the similarity is defined as one of, structural similarity, Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) similarity, and visual quality similarity between the test frame and the reference frame.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 11, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the apparatus of claim 7,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, the at least one processor is configured to perform, at least one of, update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame; and update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, the at least one processor (Fig. 10, #1002 called processor (CPU), Paragraph [0084]) is configured to perform, at least one of, update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0039] – LIU discloses frame matching condition may determine matching frames for the video quality process from the source video and the degraded video. This may take into account variations that occurred in the degraded video, such as frame dropping, duplicate frames, or out of order frames. Then, a video quality process 110 may analyze corresponding frames in the new version of the source video and the new version of the degraded video frame by frame, such as sequentially. Paragraph [0041] – LIU discloses if no frame exists in the searched frames from the source video, then matching process 502 may indicate that this frame in the degraded video has no match. This frame in the degraded video may not be included in a new version of the degraded video.);
and update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0039] – LIU discloses frame matching condition may determine matching frames for the video quality process from the source video and the degraded video. This may take into account variations that occurred in the degraded video, such as frame dropping, duplicate frames, or out of order frames. Then, a video quality process 110 may analyze corresponding frames in the new version of the source video and the new version of the degraded video frame by frame, such as sequentially. Paragraph [0045] – LIU discloses the sequence of the new version of the degraded video may be different. For example, although not shown, an out of order variation of frames in the degraded video may also be accounted for by rearranging the frame numbers in the new versions of the source video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of LIU having wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, the at least one processor is configured to perform, at least one of, update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame; and update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein when the set of subsequent test frames matches with the set of subsequent reference frames, the at least one processor is configured to perform, at least one of, update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by discarding the unmatched test frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched test frame; and update the set of subsequent test frames to the synchronized output list by adding the unmatched reference frame when the set of subsequent test frames matches the set of subsequent reference frames upon shifting the unmatched reference frame.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Regarding claim 12, CHENG and LIU in view of SONG teach the apparatus of claim 7,
CHENG fails to explicitly teach wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames.
However, LIU explicitly teaches wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0032] – LIU discloses source video frames #0 to #7 are shown, but other video frames may be found in the source video. At 204, the degraded video also includes degraded video frames #0 to #7, but other frames may be included.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of CHENG and LIU in view of SONG of having an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a test video and a corresponding reference video, comprising a plurality of reference frames, respectively, the test video produced to show content identical to the reference video; with the teachings of LIU having wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames.
Wherein CHENG’s apparatus wherein the set of subsequent test frames and the set of subsequent reference frames comprises a pre-defined number of frames.
The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide an enhanced video frame comparison technique that improves accuracy and video quality, since both CHENG and LIU relate to video processing techniques, wherein CHENG relates to video processing, and, in particular, to the registration of video sequences, wherein the use of contextual constraints can reduce the solution space, improve the accuracy, and increase the robustness against noise, and LIU is directed to techniques for a video processing system, wherein the video quality score may be more accurate using the frame matching process because the frames that are compared may consider variations that occurred in the degradation process. Please see CHENG (US 20040184530 A1), Paragraph [0004, 0055], and LIU (US 20240212118 A1), Paragraph [0015, 0019].
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Anguera Miro et al. (US 20110230987 A1) - Method, system and computer program for real time synchronizing an audio file and a video file in a multimedia device. The present invention determines the optimum alignment path between the audio signal of the audio file and the audio track signal of the video file, starting from an initial path and performing a post-alignment processing to improve the user satisfaction when playing.… Fig. 1, Abstract.
Altmann et al. (US 20110205433 A1) - Embodiments of the invention are generally directed to video frame synchronization. An embodiment of a method includes receiving a first video data stream from a first source at a first port of a multi-port device, a first video frame of the first video data stream arriving at the first port at a first arrival time, and receiving a second video data stream from a second source at a second port of the multi-port device, a second video frame of the second video data stream arriving at the second port at a second arrival time. The method further includes determining an offset between the first arrival time and the second arrival time, determining one or more correction factors based at least in part on the offset, the one or more correction factors including a first correction factor for the first source, and sending a first command to the first source to modify a time of transmission by the first source of a third video frame following the first frame using the correction factor.… Figs. 1, 2, Abstract.
Sprenger et al. (US 20180332334 A1) - Novel tools and techniques are provided for implementing media content streaming or playback, and, more particularly, for implementing media stream synchronization. In some embodiments, a synchronization system might receive a first signal that is output from a first device, which receives an original video signal from a video source and outputs a first video signal. The synchronization system might analyze the first signal to determine a first frame buffer delay, generate a delay adjustment signal based on such determination, and send the delay adjustment signal to a frame buffer delay device. The frame buffer delay device and the first device might concurrently receive the original video signal from the video source. The first delay adjustment signal causes the frame buffer delay device to apply the first frame buffer delay to the original video signal to produce a second video signal that is synchronized with the first video signal.… Fig. 4B, Abstract.
Vanderhoff et al. (US 20120062793 A1) - A device may receive a first video, receive a second video, and locate first frames, in the first video, in which a first change in scene occurs. In addition, the device may locate second frames, in the second video, in which a second change in scene occurs. Further, the device may determine whether the first change in scene matches the second change in scene and achieve synchronization when the first change in scene matches the second change in scene.… Fig. 1, Abstract.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEZAWIT N SHIMELES whose telephone number is (571)272-7663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/BEZAWIT NOLAWI SHIMELES/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
