DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120263225 A1 (hereinafter Lee )
US 20210076033 A1 (hereinafter HU)
US 20130343459 A1 (hereinafter Bici)
US 20160316211 A1 (reference status available or unavailable for slices {para 181, Fig.8})
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the claim limitations are not by the prior art combination. Specifically, encoding the second slice at a second GPU based on the first predicted value.
Examiner respectfully disagrees . First of all, it should be noted the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim only requires that the encoding process of the second slice is based on (i.e. in anyway dependents on or related to the first predicted value), and that this is performs at a second GPU. There is no selection process of a second GPU nor the selection process depends on predicted value.
Lee teaches multiple processors encode multiple slices, whereas encoding of the second slice is based on the first predicted value (Fig.2),while Lee’s processors are not to explicitly shown as GPU, however use of GPU as processor for video processing is commonplace in the art, as shown in HU. Additionally HU teaches that for slice coding, slice across boundary may or may not be available and using information indicating availability during slice coding is known technique.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of HU.
Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches a method, comprising: encoding, at a first [(Fig.2, 1st 2nd and 3rd slice are processed by 1st, 2nd and 3rd processor; the left side of Fig.2 shows processing of slices of first frame and right side shows that of second frame)] : and encoding, at a second GPU, a second slice of a second image based on the first predicated value [(Fig.2 unit 250 to encoder a second slice of a second frame uses 212-1 and 212 from the output of 211 {see the arrow})] .
Lee does not explicitly show that the first predicted value indicates availability of a slice, Lee also does not teach GPU
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, HU teaches that the boundary (as taught by Lee) information indicates availability of a slice [(HU para 187; please note ALF or loop filtering is part of encoding steps {Fig.18} )] , as well as indicates that gpu is commonplace processing unit in the field [(HU para 379)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Lee additionally teaches, with respect to claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein encoding the second slice comprises: encoding the second slice using the first slice based on the first predicated value indicating the first slice is available. [(Fig.2 unit 250 to encoder a second slice of a second frame uses 212-1 and 212 from the output of 211 {see the arrow})] .
Lee teaches, with regards to claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein encoding the second slice comprises: reconstructing a reference image using the first slice based on the first predicated value indicating the first slice is available. [(para 7-8; “The reconstructed image is input to the reference frame buffer 170 and is used as a reference image of subsequent input source images” para 37)]
Lee teaches, with regards to claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein encoding the second slice comprises: encoding the second slice based on the reference image. [(para 48)]
Lee teaches, with regards to claim 5. The method of claim 3, wherein encoding the second slice comprises: encoding, at the second GPU a third slice of the first image: [(Fig.2 and para 45-46)] and reconstructing the reference image based on the first slice and the third slice. [(para 7-8)]
Lee teaches, with regards to claim 6. The method of claim 3, wherein encoding the second slice comprises performing motion estimation based on the reference image. [(para 51-53, 37)]
Lee teaches, with regards to claim 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: encoding, at the second GPU a third slice of the first image and storing a second predicated value that indicates availability of the third slice: [(output of 221 of Fig.2)] and encoding, at the first GPU, a fourth slice of the second image based on the second predicated value. : [(output of 240 of Fig.2)]
Regarding Claims 9-14, 16-18 and 20: See analysis of claims 1-6 & 8 and see para 51, 33 & 37
Claims 7, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of HU in view of Bici.
Regarding Claims 7, 15, 19: Lee in view of HU does not explicitly show encoding the second slice based on a previously stored reference image based on the first predicated value indicating the first slice is not available.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Bici teaches [(Bici “Abstract” and para 324 if the first reference is not available then next available reference is used. Please note all references are stored in reference frame memory {para 197 })]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426