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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “relatively large size” and “relatively small size” in claims 1, 12, and 13 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “relatively large” and “relatively small” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These terms render indefinite the sizes of the respective “sub-regions” in the inner and boundary regions. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite that, for instance, the sub-regions within the inner region are larger than those allocated to the boundary regions, so that the term “large” and “small” are contextualized within the claims.
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, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chupeau, US 2023/0217006 A1, in view of Han, US 2019/0313119 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Chupeau discloses: an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
encoding an image in sub-regions with different sizes and generating one or more bitstreams for the sub-regions (See figure 9a, top and bottom margin tiles of viewport have different sizes from one another and from central tiles.);
obtaining a user viewport for the image (See “Obtain Viewport” step 202 in figure 11.);
allocating sub-regions corresponding to the user viewport among the sub-regions to the image, wherein the image includes an inner region located inside the user viewport, a boundary region adjacent to a boundary of the user viewport (See step 203 in figure 11, “select central and border tiles”, as disclosed in [0114], “At a step 203, a first list of central tiles is selected as a function of this viewport information.”); and
generating at least one bitstream corresponding to the allocated sub-regions from bitstreams for the sub-regions (See figure 4, as disclosed in [0090]),
wherein a sub-region with a relatively large size is allocated within the inner region, and wherein a sub-region with a relatively small size is allocated within the boundary region (See figure 8, showing border tiles 82 and 83 sharing a width and a height, respectively, with central tiles, but being respectively shorter and narrower than the central tiles, as disclosed in [0103]: “Horizontal border tiles have the width of central tiles and vertical border tiles have the height of central tiles.”).
Chupeau does not disclose explicitly: and an outer region located outside the user viewport. However, an outer region existing beyond a viewport region and a boundary region is shown in an analogous art by Han. See figures 2C, and 2H-2J.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a region beyond a visible region into a bitstream, as disclosed in Han, as it was known in the art before the Applicant’s effective filing date that immersive video includes regions beyond a user-defined viewport area which are not immediately visible, but which contain portions of an immersive video scene.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chupeau in view of Han discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends. This combination, specifically Chupeau, further discloses: the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein, among the sub-regions, sub-regions belonging to a same row have a same size (See figure 4.))
Image encoding apparatus claim 12 is directed to an image encoding apparatus having a memory and processor configured to perform steps corresponding to the encoding steps of image encoding method claim 1. Therefore, image encoding apparatus claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claim 1.
Bitstream transmitting method claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above with respect to encoding method claim 1.
Claims 5, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chupeau, in view of Han, in view of Gilson, US 2019/0200084 A1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chupeau in view of Han discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. This combination does not disclose: the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the sub-region with the relatively large size is allocated within the outer region.
However, Gilson discloses this feature in an analogous art directed to immersive video delivery. Gilson discloses in [0065], “In the examples discussed previously where the blocks may have different sizes for different regions of the video frame, blocks comprising the field of view may be smaller than those outside of the field of view to allow finer grained control of which regions of the video frame to get higher bitrate MBR data.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Chupeau, of encoding tiles outside of the viewport with a relatively large size, to allow finer grained control of which regions of the video frame to get higher bitrate MBR data.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chupeau in view of Han discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends. This combination does not disclose: the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the inner region and the boundary region are encoded with a relatively high bit rate, and the outer region is encoded with a relatively low bit rate.
However, Gilson discloses this feature in an analogous art directed to immersive video delivery. See [0065], which discloses, “When the blocks are MBR blocks, during the multicast transmission of the baseline layer, a respective higher bitrate version of each of the blocks comprising the aggregate area of focus may be selected and transmitted among its respective multiple bitrate versions.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Gilson, of encoding regions outside of a viewport at lower bitrates than regions inside of a viewport, in order to optimize bandwidth allocation according to viewport location. The higher bitrate versions may carry higher resolution versions of the block of the image. Higher resolution versions of blocks provide better quality for the block of the image. By having multiple versions of each block available, the server may choose a higher bitrate version of some blocks, and a lower bitrate version of other blocks, depending on, for example, what portion(s) of the video frame 30 the user's eyes are looking at or focusing on.”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chupeau, in view of Han, in view of Gilson discloses the limitations of claim 10, upon which claim 11 depends. This combination, specifically Gilson, further discloses: the image encoding method of claim 10, wherein the generating comprises: subtracting a bit rate for encoding the inner region and the boundary region from a predefined target bit rate; and
determining a bit rate for encoding the outer region by comparing a candidate bit rate for
encoding the outer region and a result of the subtracting (See [0059], which discloses, “Since a bandwidth for video delivery to a user device may be fixed within a certain period of time, e.g., 4 Megabits/second, to efficiently distribute the bandwidth for the video frame during the video delivery, the server may allocate a larger percentage (e.g., 70%) of the bandwidth for transmitting video
content associated with the area of focus, and may allocate a smaller percentage of the bandwidth for transmitting video content other than video content associated with the area of focus.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, and 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the allocating comprises:
comparing a number of sub-regions with a third size included in a sub-region with a first size and a predefined threshold value; and
allocating the sub-region with the first size, when the number of sub-regions with the third size included in the sub-region with the first size is equal to or greater than the threshold value.
The closest prior art, Chupeau, discloses encoding tiles at a smaller size at a viewport boundary, but does not disclose determining tile sizes based on a number of sub-regions having a third, smallest tile size, included in a sub-region with a first, largest size, being greater than a threshold value.
Regarding claim 6, the image encoding method of claim 5, wherein the allocating comprises:
determining whether or not a sub-region with a third size included in a sub-region with a first size is included in the outer region; and
allocating the sub-region with the first size, when the sub-region with the third size included in the sub-region with the first size is included in the outer region.
The closest prior art, Han, discloses iteratively decreasing a sub-region size uniformly across a viewport so as to optimally encode the viewport according to its size and shape without sending superfluous (non-visible) data. See figures 2H-2J. See step 203 in figure 11, “select central and border tiles”, as disclosed in [0114], “At a step 203, a first list of central tiles is selected as a function of this viewport information.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425