DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
2. Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Damien Schroeder (hereinafter Schroeder); “MULTI-RATE VIDEO ENCODING FOR ADAPTIVE HTTP STREAMING”, Facultat fur Electrotechnik und Informationtechnik; 22/02/2017 in view of Stephan Wenger et al., (hereinafter Wenger) (US 7,352,809).
Re Claim 1. Schroeder discloses, a method comprising:
obtaining representation data for a virtual representation of a subject (extracting a virtual coding unit (CU) structure from an image frame at low resolution, Ch.5, Sec.5.2.3 as being a representation of video content/image at different bitrates, of a data set Ch.6 Sec.6.2.5 by a representation of various subjects depicted in Table 6.1) ;
determining, based on the representation data, a first bitrate to satisfy a first quality metric for a first data quality tier (based on the representation data at different bitrates, determining different quality tiers, i.e., quality data according to the PSNR quality metrics derived at Ch.2 Sec.2.1.6 as a function of the bitrate, for a specific variable quantization parameters and a bitrates, e.g., per Table 6.1, where a first quality tier is depicted in Fig.2.8 e.g., the high quality tier at Ch.2 Sec.2.3.1
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
determining, based on the representation data (based on specific characteristics of the image block CU, and depending on the perspective of the frame area covered, adapting the bitrate for high to low resolutions, i.e., based on extracted CU structure information, at Figs.5.1 and 5.2, Ch.5 Sec.5.2.2 by adjusting the bitrate Sec.5.2.3), a second bitrate to satisfy a second quality metric for a second data quality tier (a second quality tier e.g., the low quality data based on the bitrate Fig.2.8 Ch.2 Sec.2.3.1); and
generating a set of data quality tiers for the representation of the subject based on the first bitrate and the second bitrate (generating a plurality of data quality tiers, from a plurality of encoders, having different quality values from high to medium to low quality tiers, at Fig.2.8, Ch.2 Sec.2.3 and determining the bitrate by rate-control according to an average bitrate and a set of quantization parameters (QP), Sec.5.5.3).
In an analogous art, Wenger teaches the method and apparatus of using multiple encoders, adaptable bitrates to achieve optimized quality by adapting the bitrate of each encoder individually, according to image characteristics as in,
determining, based on the representation data, a first bitrate to satisfy a first quality metric for a first data quality tier (determining a bitrate representation data for each encoder, Col.5 Lin.1-15 satisfying a first quality metric among other, Col.4 Lin,1-15, Fig.5 as being initialized i.e., a first bit rate, R(n) , at a first encoder, Col.8 Lin.1-25 and formula (1) to achieve a quality level, from the QP average values, Col.7 Lin.33-50) ;
determining, based on the representation data, a second bitrate to satisfy a second quality metric for a second data quality tier (recalculating new bitrates R(n) values for each encoder 12a-18a, per formulae (2) and (3) Col.8 Lin.26-33, to obtain a quality level, according to the new calculated bitrate and a quality measurement i.e., metric based on the QP average values, or as a quality indication, Col.7 Lin.51-67 and on the distortion D(n), from computed loss by PSNR, SAD, SSD, Col.8 Lin.38-45, e.g., at the new calculator 56 in Fig.4); and
generating a set of data quality tiers for the representation of the subject based on the first bitrate and the second bitrate (generating a set of data quality tiers i.e., of new bitrates at each encoder 12a-18a, Col.8 Lin.17-29, etc.).
The ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention, would have combined the known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, as disclosed in Schroeder, for adjusting the video bitrate at different tiers of resolution i.e., as bitrate or quantization parameter being adjusted according to structure information extracted from the image i.e., at CU level, , (Sec.5.5.5, Table 5.19) in a rate control encoding (Sec.5.5.3) in an adaptive streaming and rate adaptation to bandwidth (Sec.2.2.3) and associate the intended scope and utility with the art to Wenger, teaching the control method for different bitrate levels, or tiers, for each of the encoder from a set of encoders, based on quantization QP average, in order to satisfy an overall quality of the broadband image displayed (Fif.3 Col.7 Lin.11-67, Col.8 Lin.1-45) by determining a quality measurement, hence finding that the combination is providing predictable results. Per MPEP 2143 (A-D).
Re Claim 2. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, but he does not expressly identifies the data comprising a person,
Wenger teaches about, wherein the representation data comprises persona data (persona data indicating the person movement from one position to a standing and raising the arms, Col.10 Lin.14-20), and wherein the subject comprises a person (the scenes captured by cameras C1…C4, show various persona data comprising a person Vol.10 Lin.9-20, which are/is generated by each encoder E1…E4, at specific data representation of Bitrate and QP values, per Fig.11 Col.2 Lin. 44-67, Col.3 Lin.1-26).
Re Claim 3. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising
Wenger teaches about, transmitting additional representation data in accordance with the first data quality tier or the second data quality tier in accordance with a bandwidth policy (transmitting additional data according to the persona data by changing the bitrate and generating a new bitrate according to the bandwidth of network 34, for each encoder, 12-18, Col.11 Lin.1-15).
Re Claim 4. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising Wenger teaches about, transmitting data quality tier information for the representation data to one or more remote devices in a copresence communication session (transmitting the data of the determined quality tier information to a remote station 36, Col.11 Lin.7-15, Fig.2, or Figs.6-8 in a video conference environment, Col.2 Lin.20-26, Fig.11 or in a video conference at Fig.5 Col.10 Lin.1-20 etc.).
Re Claim 5. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Wenger teaches about, encoding the representation data using a first encoder for the first quality metric (encoding the set of data quality tiers i.e., of new bitrates at each encoder 12a-18a, Col.8 Lin.17-29), and identifying the first bitrate based on the encoding using the first encoder (a first bitrate F, using the first encoder E1, Figs.5-11, wherein determining the second bitrate comprises:
encoding the persona data using a second encoder for the second quality metric, and identifying the second bitrate based on the encoding using the second encoder (encoding at a second encoder the persona data indicating the person movement from one position to a standing and raising the arms, Col.10 Lin.14-20 the scenes captured by cameras C1…C4, show various persona data comprising a person Vol.10 Lin.9-20, which are/is generated by each encoder E1…E4, at specific data representation of Bitrate and QP values, per Fig.11 Col.2 Lin. 44-67, Col.3 Lin.1-26).
Re Claim 6. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein Wenger teaches about, the representation data comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of geometric data, texture data, video data, and audio data for at least one of the subject and a particular representation of the subject (the bitrate representation data in the image I, includes geometrical resemblance to a captured scene A, Col.3 Lin.11-18 according to the each encoder E1-E4 generating a bitstream in compliance to these parameters of video data, including audio data as would have been obvious from the scope of the video conference at Col.7 Lin.45-51).
Re Claim 7. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 6,
Schroeder obviates the action, wherein the representation data is obtained during an enrollment process (where in a multi-rate video encoding, where multiple users share the wireless resources in a cellular network, thus implying or inferring a form of access by registration or enrolment to respective services, for mobile or HTTP streaming access, Sec.2.2.3 or at Sec.6.1).
Re Claim 8. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 7,
Schroeder obviates that, wherein the enrollment process is performed on a first device (implying or inferring a form of access by registration or enrolment to respective services, for mobile or HTTP streaming access, Sec.2.2.3 or at Sec.6.1), and
wherein additional representation data from an enrollment process on an additional device is associated with an alternative set of data quality tiers for an alternative representation of the subject (an additional representation data of a subject associated with quality tiers at different bitrates, which users need to know in a video-content-dependent model, Sec.6.1 Pg.79, is addressed by the multi-rate scenario with multiple output rates being targeted, Sec.6.1, Pg.80).
Re Claim 9. This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 10. This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 3, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 11. This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 4, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 12. This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 6, where the user represents the subject in aa mobile conference scenario, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 13. This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 5, where the “persona” is part of the representation data at each bitrate and at each encoder, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 14. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13,
Wenger obviates that, wherein the computer readable code to identify the first bitrate based on the encoding using the first encoder comprises computer readable code (processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources comprise code of algorithms for rate control resident at each encoder, Col.6 Lin.24-27) to:
Schroeder teaches about, determine a bitrate at which a threshold amount of the persona data is encoded by the first encoder (determining a threshold for the extracted virtual CU structure information, Sec.5.2.3, per Fig.5.3 from a CU depth, po, and a texture of “blue” and “white” associated with “persona” data, per Fig.5.1, Table 5.1 for a threshold at Sec.5.2.6.2 with the results of the threshold value depending on 720p, 360p using 1080p resolutions, referenced to QP and threshold value θ, at Sec.5.3.4).
Re Claim 15. Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14,
Wenger teaches that, wherein the set of data quality tiers are modified during runtime based on additional persona data collected (the process continues using the newly determined bitrate, during the lifetime of a video conference Col.7 Lin.43-51).
Re Claim 16. This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 9, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 17. This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 13, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 18. This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 14, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 19. This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 14, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), where the threshold bitrate is determined by the quantization parameter QP value, for the first encoder per (Wenger, QP value determining the bitrate at Figs.1 to 9 and 11, Col.2 Lin.1-8, or 61-65 etc.) hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 20. This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 15, per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other prior art not used but considered are:
Anne Aaron et al., (US 2016/0295216)
Yuriy Reznik et al., (US 2020/0236372)
Sergey Ikonin et al., (US 2023/0262243)
Chuang Gu et al., (US 8,396,114)
See PTO-892 form.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DRAMOS . KALAPODAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/