DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the application filed 21 August 2024.
Claims 1-21 are pending and considered below.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, claim 2 recites the limitation “the a content quality change measurement” which is believed to be a typographical error for ‘the [[a]] content quality change measurement’. Claims 9 and 16 suffer from the same deficiency and are likewise objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, in lines 5-7, recites the limitation “determining, based on the one or more data blocks of the content, peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content”. The specification at most discloses “a peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) can be determined for one or more frames or blocks of encoded frames in one or more videos” (emphasis added, [0032]) but there is no disclosure of determining a peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content based on the one or more data blocks as claimed.
Claim 2 recites “wherein determining the peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content comprises: deriving a content quality change measurement from the content prior to encoding to content quality after encoding the content to the encoded content by calculating a mean squared error between the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content and the one or more data blocks; referencing a maximum signal-to-noise threshold associated with the content; and generating the peak signal-to-noise-ratio information by comparing the maximum signal-to-noise threshold to the a content quality change measurement, such that a higher value of the peak-signal-to-noise ratio information reflects less distortion in the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content relative to the one or more data blocks of the content prior to encoding”. However, there is no support in the original specification for such PSNR determination.
Claim 3 recites “wherein determining, based on the one or more data blocks of the content, the peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content is further based on calculating a mean squared error between the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content and the one or more data blocks to generate the peak signal-to-noise ratio information”. However, there is no support in the original specification for such PSNR determination.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the content represents high bitrate content, the encoded content represents low bitrate content, and the peak signal-to-noise ratio information indicates whether the high bitrate content or the low bitrate content is transmitted to a device”. However, the original specification does not support
Claim 7 recites “wherein the content is encoded using a first codec, the encoded content is encoded using a second codec, and the peak signal-to-noise ratio information quantifies a difference in quality between the use of the first codec and the second codec”. However, the original specification discloses neither such encoding nor such PSNR.
The remaining claims are rejected for suffering from similar deficiencies or for depending upon a claim which does.
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 1-21 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 1, in lines 8-9, recites the limitation “the peak signal-to-noise ratio information”. This limitation corresponds to “peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content”. In other words, there may be more than one peak signal-to-noise ration information. It is unclear to which particular peak signal-to-noise ration information “the peak signal-to-noise ratio information” refers back.
Independent claims 8 and 9 as well as dependent claims 4-6, 11-13 and 18-20 recite similar limitations and are likewise rejected.
All the dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim without providing a remedy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2004/0017850).
Claim 1:
Kim discloses a method comprising:
receiving content comprising one or more data blocks; encoding the one or more data blocks of the content to generate encoded content comprising one or more encoded data blocks (“a bit stream which is encoded”, [0038], see also [0050]-[0051]);
determining, based on the one or more data blocks of the content, peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content (“A PSNRi (peak signal-to-noise ratio) calculating unit 530 calculates PSNR of the current frame”, [0059]); and
storing the peak signal-to-noise ratio information in association with each of the one or more data blocks of the content (“PSNRw calculating unit 540 accumulates a PSRN value calculated when each frame is encoded, within the scope of the sliding window”, [0059]).
Claim 3:
Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining, based on the one or more data blocks of the content, the peak signal-to-noise ratio information for each of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content is further based on calculating a mean squared error between the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content and the one or more data blocks to generate the peak signal-to-noise ratio information ([0060]).
Claim 4:
Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the content represents high bitrate content, the encoded content represents low bitrate content ([0051], note that quantization reduces bitrate), and the peak signal-to-noise ratio information indicates whether the high bitrate content or the low bitrate content is transmitted to a device ([0042], see also [0067]).
Claim 5:
Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, to a device, based on the peak signal-to-noise ratio information, at least one encoded data block of the one or more encoded data blocks of the encoded content ([0042], see also [0067]).
Claim 6:
Kim discloses the method of claim 1, comprising transmitting, to a device, based on the peak signal-to-noise ratio information, at least one data block of the one or more data blocks of the content ([0042], see also [0067]).
Claims 8 and 10-13:
Kim discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus ([0099]-[0100]) to perform the steps of process claims 1 and 3-6 as shown above.
Claims 15 and 17-20:
Kim discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor ([0099]-[0100]), cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of process claims 1 and 3-6 as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shah et al. (US 2007/0201388) describes techniques for exchanging information between a plurality of encoder modules and a multiplex module to combine segments of data from the encoder modules with an improved overall quality. In particular, the encoder modules associate their respective segments of data with quality and rate information and send at least the quality and rate information associated with the segments of data to the multiplex module. The multiplex module analyzes the quality and rate information to determine whether the segments of data that encoder modules desire to include in the current superframe fit within the available bandwidth of a transmission channel. If the multiplex module determines the plurality of segments of data do not fit within the available bandwidth, the multiplex module selects one or more of the segments to be resized based on the quality and rate information received from the encoder modules.
Isaksson (US 2012/0271920) discloses a media stream transmitted to a client device which is dynamically adapted based on real-time availability of resources on the client device. Central processing unit resources, memory availability, buffer usage, graphics processing unit usage, etc., are continuously monitored to evaluate the ability of a device to handle media streams of particular quality levels. When it is determined that resources at a client device temporarily cannot handle a high quality media stream, a lower quality stream is selected and provided to the client device without having to establish a new session.
Ur (US 2013/0060904) discloses a method, apparatus and computer program product useful for communicating media content, over a computerized network, in accordance with download duration time. One exemplary method may comprise obtaining a download duration time from a client with respect to a media content; determining a quality of the media content so as to be provided within the download duration time; and transmitting to the client a version of the media content having the quality.
Manchester et al. (US 2014/0143826) discloses an encoder resource which receives segments of content on one or more data feeds. The encoder resource receives and/or produces encoder control information specifying multiple different bit rate data streams on which to encode the segments of content. As specified by the encoder control information, in accordance with encoding rules, the encoder resource adaptively encodes the segments of content into a varying number of different bit rate data streams. Clients in a network environment initiate retrieval of the varying number of different bit rate data streams to playback content.
Mao et al. (US 2015/0100701) provides methods implemented by a processor executing a DASH client on a receiver device for determining when, in view of a change in the receiver device's resources (e.g., bandwidth, battery power, etc.), to cancel or abandon downloading the current segment at the current representation and restart download of the current segment at a different representation to meet one or more performance objectives and/or optimizations related to the change in the receiver device's resources. In various embodiments, the receiver device processor may perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether switching representations during the ongoing download of the current segment will benefit the performance of the receiver device, and the receiver device processor may switch representations in response to determining that switching representations would improve the performance of the receiver device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights