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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 04/03/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
The application claims foreign priority to EP 23191504.2 filed on 08/15/2023. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 08/19/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 04/03/2026 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim, on page 10-18 argues “a motion estimator configured to determine a motion estimation value for the first set of imaging”. While the applicant’s argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because Schaar in view of Lachine teaches (MPEP 2141.I, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability”, Schaar discloses, Section III.D, MPEG-2 motion-compensation, macroblocks, which is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art that the estimation is included, Lee, US 6317460 B1, Column 2, Line 26-39, Fig. 4-7, so, the rejection is maintained).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-3 refer to "A system for transforming raw image data into a video stream”, Claim 14 refers to "A method for transforming raw image data into a video stream”, and Claim 15 refers to "One or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. Claims 14-15 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-13, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-13, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaar et al. (“Near-Lossless Complexity-Scalable Embedded Compression Algorithm For Cost Reduction In DTV Receivers”, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 46, No.4, Nov 01, 2000, Pages 923-933), hereinafter Schaar, in view of Lachine et al. (US 20140169480 A1), Hereinafter Lachine. Schaar is cited by the applicant in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Schaar discloses a system for transforming raw image data into a video stream comprising a plurality of encoded image frames, the system comprising (Abstract): an image signal processor, ISP, configured to process the image data into a plurality of processed image frames (Page 930, High transmission bit-rates, image coded on a frame basis); a video encoder configured to encode the processed image frames into the video stream comprising the plurality of encoded image frames (Fig. 5, compressed bit stream); a memory configured to temporarily store sets of imaging data during the transformation of image data into the video stream, each set of imaging data comprising one of (Fig. 6, buffer): image data, partially processed image data, or at least a portion of a processed image frame, wherein the sets of imaging data comprise a first set of imaging data; a motion estimator configured to determine a motion estimate value for the first set of imaging data (Section II.A, Section III.A, segment construction, macroblocks together into a segment, Section III.D); a memory bandwidth compressor configured to compress the first set of imaging data when being written to the memory and decompress the first set of imaging data when being read from the memory (Section II-III, dedicated vs. media-processor based solutions); the system further comprising an encoding analyser configured to associate the first set of imaging data with encoding parameters based on the motion estimate value, wherein the encoding parameters comprises (Fig. 4, Section III.D): or second data indicating a quantization parameter (QP) that will be used by the video encoder when encoding the first set of imaging data, or data derived therefrom, as a block of pixels in an encoded image frame of the plurality of encoded image frames (Fig. 4); wherein the memory bandwidth compressor is configured to compress the first set of imaging data based on the encoding parameters associated with the first set of imaging data (Fig. 4, Section II-III, dedicated vs. media-processor based solutions).
Schaar discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Schaar does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section an image sensor configured to continuously capture raw image data; raw image data; first data indicating that the video encoder will disregard the first set of imaging data, or data derived therefrom, when encoding the video stream.
However, Lachine from the same or similar endeavor teaches an image sensor configured to continuously capture raw image data; raw image data ([0020], e.g., video source, camera, Fig. 5); first data indicating that the video encoder will disregard the first set of imaging data, or data derived therefrom, when encoding the video stream ([0048], discarded, Fig. 2, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaar to incorporate the teachings of Lachine to save signal bandwidth for video processing ([0003], [0003]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, upon the first set of imaging data being associated with encoding parameters comprising the first data, the memory bandwidth compressor is configured to encode the first set of imaging data using a single colour value, the single colour value being one of: a predetermined colour, or an average colour determined from the first set of imaging data (Lachine, [0028], color space, [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, upon the first set of imaging data being associated with encoding parameters comprising the second data, the memory bandwidth compressor is configured to encode the first set of imaging data using the QP indicated by the second data (Schaar, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, Section I-III, Section III.A, Segment analysis, Adaptive quantizer).
Regarding claim 4, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the ISP comprises a temporal noise reduction stage , wherein the temporal noise reduction stage comprises the motion estimator (Schaar, Section III, motion compensation, Lachine, [0003], motion estimation, Section III.D).
Regarding claim 5, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the encoding analyser is configured to, upon determining that the motion estimate value is less than a first motion threshold, associate the first set of imaging data with encoding parameters comprising the first data, wherein the video encoder encodes the first set of imaging data, or data derived therefrom, as a skip block in an encoded image frame of the plurality of encoded image frames (Schaar, Section III, motion compensation, Lachine, [0003], motion estimation).
Regarding claim 6, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the encoding analyser is configured to, upon determining that the motion estimate value is equal to or exceeds the first motion threshold, associate the first set of imaging data with encoding parameters comprising the second data, wherein a value of the QP indicated by the second data increases with a decreasing motion estimate value (Schaar, Section III, motion compensation, Lachine, [0003], motion estimation).
Regarding claim 7, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an overlay applier configured to apply an overlay to a portion of a processed image frame of the plurality of processed image frames, wherein the encoding analyser is further configured to, upon determining that the portion of the processed image frame is derived from the first set of image data, associate the first set of imaging data with encoding parameters comprising the first data (Schaar, Section III, motion compensation, Lachine, [0003], motion estimation, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an overlay applier configured to apply an overlay to a portion of a processed image frame of the plurality of processed image frames, wherein the encoding analyser is further configured to, upon determining that the portion of the processed image frame is derived from the first set of image data, associate the first set of imaging data with encoding parameters comprising the second data, wherein a value of the QP indicated by the second data is set to a predetermined value (Schaar, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, Section I-III, Section III.A, Segment analysis, Adaptive quantizer).
Regarding claim 9, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the first set of imaging data comprises raw image data (Lachine, [0020], motion estimation, Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a camera chip comprising the image sensor, ISP and video encoder, wherein the memory is provided external to the camera chip (Schaar, Page 925, SDRAM, Lachine, [0003], video processor, [0020], motion estimation, Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the memory is a Dynamic Random Access Memory, DRAM (Schaar, Page 925, SDRAM, a special DRAM).
Regarding claim 12, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a camera chip comprising the image sensor, ISP, video encoder, and the memory, wherein the memory is a Static Random Access Memory, SRAM (Schaar, Page 925, SDRAM).
Regarding claim 13, Schaar in view of Lachine discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the memory bandwidth compressor is configured to compress the first set of imaging data further based on a memory bandwidth of the memory (Schaar, Section I-III).
Regarding claim 14-15, See Examiner’s Note. Jun et al. (US 20200177902 A1), [0010]
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights