DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the 112a rejections, 112b rejections and the 103 rejections for claims 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections above have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 16-20 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. Claim 16 recites in part “satisfies the threshold value”. It is unclear what defines satisfying a threshold value. For example, a definition of satisfy is to meet the expectations, needs or desires.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (herein after will be referred to as Peters) (US 20210185276) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395).
Regarding claim 1, Peters discloses
a computer-implemented method for adaptively adjusting video quality in a virtual event, the method comprising: [See Peters [0010-0016] Distributed/Shared processing of video streams between server and endpoints for video conference.]
receiving, at a media services device of a hosting platform for the virtual event, a video stream that is associated with a presenter computing device and that is encoded using a first codec; [See Peters [0012-0015] Server analyzes video from endpoints. Also, see 0008, current speaker. Also, see 0191, video compressed via a codec.]
detecting, at the media services device, a motion associated with a presenter in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm; [See Peters [0077] Facial analysis is performed via server. Also, see 0275, machine learning models are used to process facial images.]
issuing a request from the media services device to the presenter computing device in response to detecting the motion associated with the presenter at the media services device, [See Peters [0161] Actions to alter the transmission of the video conference at the endpoints, such as transmission of data….designate a particular participant as a speaker. Also, see 0077, Facial analysis is performed via server and/or 0295, faces are used for active speaker. Also, see 0055, action includes altering video conference by changing a compression codec.]
receiving, at the media services device, an updated video stream from the presenter computing device that is encoded using the second codec in response to issuing the request; and [See Peters [0055] Action includes changing a compression codec (i.e. via para. 0012-0015, at the server). Also, see [0012-0015] Server analyzes video from endpoints.]
selectively forwarding at least a portion of the updated video stream from the media services device to other computing devices. [See Peters [0008, 0026] Server transmits/forwards participants video stream to the other endpoints.]
Peters does not explicitly disclose
changing from the first codec to a second codec that is a higher quality codec than the first codec;
However, Swaminathan does disclose
changing from the first codec to a second codec that is a higher quality codec than the first codec; [See Swaminathan [Col. 3 lines 58-67] dynamically adjusting the codec being applied considering the quality achieved by the codec in the context of the current scene in the video….more complex codecs achieve increase in video quality.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Peters to add the teachings of Swaminathan, in order to adaptively select a codec for video data transmission due to the different costs and benefits associated with different codecs [See Swaminathan [Col. 1 lines 15-18]].
Regarding claim 2, Peters (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Peters discloses
wherein the request further causes the presenter computing device to change a frame rate, bitrate, or a resolution of the video stream. [See Peters [0053] Actions include changing resolution and/or para. 0161, actions include changing a frame rate.]
Regarding claim 5, Peters (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein changing from the first codec to the second codec comprises changing to H.264.
However, Swaminathan does disclose
wherein changing from the first codec to the second codec comprises changing to H.264. [See Swaminathan [Col. 3 lines 58-67] dynamically adjusting the codec being applied considering the quality achieved by the codec in the context of the current scene in the video. Also, see Col. 1 line 39, list of available codecs. It is obvious that H.264 is a type of video codec utilized in video coding and will be included in this list.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 20210185276) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395) and in further view of Zingade et al. (herein after will be referred to as Zingade) (US 20220237735).
Regarding claim 3, Peters (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein detecting the motion of the presenter in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein detecting the motion of the presenter in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions. [See Zingade [0068] Identify speaking via lips movement.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Peters (modified by Swaminathan) to add the teachings of Zingade, in order to enhance user experience in video conferencing applications [See Zingade [0001]].
Regarding claim 4, Peters (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further applying a video-super resolution algorithm to the video stream.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further applying a video-super resolution algorithm to the video stream. [See Zingade [0104] Super-resolution imaging techniques for speaker.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 20210185276) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395) and in further view of Takahashi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Takahashi) (US 20170041570).
Regarding claim 6, Peters (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further cropping the video stream.
However, Takahashi does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further cropping the video stream. [See Takahashi [0056] In a typical video conferencing system having a speaker-tracking function, when any one of conference participants speaks, a close-up cropped image of the speaker is displayed.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Peters (modified by Swaminathan) to add the teachings of Takahashi, in order to implement more-realistic video conferencing [See Takahashi [0007]].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 20210185276) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395) and in further view of Harrison et al. (herein after will be referred to as Harrison) (US Patent No. 10,834,358).
Regarding claim 7, Peters (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: detecting motion in a background of the video stream; and applying a Gaussian blur to the background in response to detecting the motion in the background.
However, Harrison does disclose
further comprising: detecting motion in a background of the video stream; and applying a Gaussian blur to the background in response to detecting the motion in the background. [See Harrison [Col. 9 line 62 to Col. 10 line 20] Detect background motion and the processor blurs the background via a Gaussian blur to reduce background motion of video data.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Peters (modified by Sawminathan) to add the teachings of Harrison, in order to enhance the quality of the video data in a video conference [See Harrison [Col. 9 lines 48-61]].
Claims 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 20210185276) in view of Zingade (US 20220237735).
Regarding claim 8, Peters discloses
a computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a media services device associated with a hosting platform for a virtual event, cause the processor to perform a method for adaptively adjusting video quality in the virtual event, the method comprising: [See Peters [0010-0016] Distributed/Shared processing of video streams between server and endpoints for video conference.]
receiving, at the media services device, a video stream associated with a presenter computing device; [See Peters [0012-0015] Server analyzes video from endpoints.]
selectively forwarding at least a portion of the updated video stream from the media services device to the other computing devices. [See Peters [0008, 0026] Server transmits/forwards participants video stream to the other endpoints.]
Bader does not explicitly disclose
determining, at the media services device, regions of interest amongst a plurality of regions in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm;
filtering the video stream received from the presenter computing device at the media services device before distribution to other computing devices in response to determining the regions of interest in the video stream at the media services device, wherein filtering the video stream comprises increasing a video quality for the regions of interest that differentiates from a video quality for other regions of the plurality of regions not in the regions of interest;
generating, at the media services device, an updated video stream with an increased video quality for the regions of interest while other regions remain at the video quality that is less than the increased video quality as a result of said filtering; and
However, Zingade does disclose
determining, at the media services device, regions of interest amongst a plurality of regions in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm; [See Zingade [0075] Image regions are detected using machine learning techniques such as face detection. Also, see 0059, video conferencing is implemented by a server application executing on a server.]
filtering the video stream received from the presenter computing device at the media services device before distribution to other computing devices in response to determining the regions of interest in the video stream at the media services device, wherein filtering the video stream comprises increasing a video quality for the regions of interest that differentiates from a video quality for other regions of the plurality of regions not in the regions of interest; [See Zingade [0064] Server to modify the identified regions within the video segment included enlarged image regions and then transmit the server processed video to second computing devices.]
generating, at the media services device, an updated video stream with an increased video quality for the regions of interest while other regions remain at the video quality that is less than the increased video quality as a result of said filtering; and [See Zingade [0064] Server to modify the identified regions within the video segment included enlarged image regions. Also, see 0089, image scaling is performed in only the selected image regions.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader to add the teachings of Zingade, in order to enhance user experience in video conferencing applications [See Zingade [0001]].
Regarding claim 9, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises determining a presenter's face.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises determining a presenter's face. [See Zingade [0075] Image regions are detected using machine learning techniques such as face detection.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein filtering the video stream further comprises: applying a video super-resolution algorithm to the video stream.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein filtering the video stream further comprises: applying a video super-resolution algorithm to the video stream. [See Zingade [0104] Face enhancement super-resolution.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions. [See Zingade [0076] Facial landmarks correspond to upper/lower lip.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein filtering the video stream further comprises: cropping a frame of the video stream.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein filtering the video stream further comprises: cropping a frame of the video stream. [See Zingade [0089] Crop the image regions depicting the speaker.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 9. Furthermore, Peters discloses
wherein filtering the video stream further comprises: changing a frame rate, bitrate, and/or a resolution of the video stream. [See Peters [0053] Actions include changing resolution and/or para. 0161, actions include changing a frame rate.]
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (herein after will be referred to as Peters) (US 20210185276) in view of Zingade (US 20220237735) and in further view of Choi (US 20090066782).
Regarding claim 10, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 9. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein increasing the video quality for the regions of interest comprises: encoding the presenter's face at a higher frame rate than a background.
However, Choi does disclose
wherein in response to determining the presenter's face further encoding the presenter's face at a higher frame rate than a background. [See Choi [0004] ROI has higher frame rate than background.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Peters (modified by Zingade) to add the teachings of Choi, in order to include additional obvious video processing techniques to improve upon the quality of an ROI/speaker region in Peters.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 20210185276) in view of Zingade (US 20220237735) and in further view of Van Der Auwera et al. (herein after will be referred to as Van Der Auwera) (US 20180160123).
Regarding claim 12, Peters (modified by Zingade) disclose the media of claim 8. Furthermore, Peters does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further changing the video stream to a higher quality codec.
However, Van Der Auewera does disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further changing the video stream to a higher quality codec. [See Van Der Auwera [0115] ROI information is used for transcoding optimization via a different codec.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Peters (modified by Zingade) to add the teachings of Van Der Auwera, in order to optimize the video quality of a speaker in a video conference via a higher quality codec.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights