DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 31 October 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 2-3 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.
Claims 2-3 recites the limitation "a higher resolution" in lines 2 and 3, respectively. The claim from which they depend recites “a higher resolution” in line 13. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim may be unclear as to whether their the same higher resolution or another.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 8559501 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-15, Chen discloses a method perform on an apparatus via CRM of encoding/decoding a sequence of frames so as to obtain an encoded sequence of frames, the method comprising: - making an evaluation on a frame-by-frame basis for a zone in a series of successive frames whether the zone should be encoded in an intra-mode or in an inter- mode, the evaluation being based on the criterion which of the aforementioned modes produces the smallest amount of data when encoding the zone in the frame concerned [Chen: Col. 3, ll. 40-51: wherein the step of pre-analyzing comprises the sub-steps of determining whether or not Intra refresh is used for a picture, wherein Intra refresh means forced intra coding of specified picture portions, extracting attention area information on block or MB level for each of the pictures that use Intra refresh, generating based on said extracted attention area information at least for each selected picture an Intra refresh map that indicates for each block or MB whether it will be Inter or Intra coded]; - applying a refresh scheme that frequently causes the zone to be forcibly encoded in the intra-mode for one out of several successive frames, irrespective of the evaluation made [Chen: Col. 3, ll. 40-51]; and - quantizing the zone in the series of successive frames so that if, for a frame, the zone is forcibly encoded in the intra-mode although the evaluation was made that the zone in the frame should be encoded in the inter-mode, the zone is quantized with a higher resolution than for other frames where the zone is encoded in accordance with the evaluation that was made [Chen: Col. 7, ll. 10-13: The quantization step used by the frequency domain analyzer 46 can be constant for all MBs/blocks and pictures, or adjusted by the Intra or Inter-mode. E.g. the quantization step for Intra node can be a little smaller than that for Inter mode, so that a somewhat higher quality that is achieved for Intra coding can benefit the later prediction].
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein quantizing the zone comprises:- fixedly quantizing the zone with a resolution that is higher if the zone is forcibly encoded in the intra-mode although the evaluation was made that the zone should be encoded in the inter-mode than if the zone were encoded in accordance with the evaluation that was made [Chen: Col. 7, ll. 10-13]; and - controllably quantizing the zone with a resolution depending on a control scheme ensuring that encoding the frame, or a portion thereof, produces an amount of data that is within a budget [Chen: Col. 5, ll. 63-65: A flowchart of the method for adaptively determining a bit budget for encoding video pictures according to the invention is shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4].
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses he method comprising: - providing, for a frame that is encoded, an indication on whether, or not, the zone in the frame was forcibly encoded in the intra-mode although the evaluation was made that the zone should be encoded in the inter-mode [Chen: Col. 3, ll. 40-51; wherein performing the process may be an indication].
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (US 2021/0409685 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 1, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen may not explicitly disclose wherein the zone is quantized with a higher resolution if the zone is encoded in the inter-mode according to the evaluation that was made than if the zone is encoded in the intra-mode according to the evaluation that was made.
However, Gao discloses wherein the zone is quantized with a higher resolution if the zone is encoded in the inter-mode according to the evaluation that was made than if the zone is encoded in the intra-mode according to the evaluation that was made [Gao: ¶ [0062]: The determining, according to a relationship between a first quantity of intra-frame decoded blocks and a second quantity of inter-frame decoded blocks, a target resolution used for decoding the target video frame may include, but is not limited to: obtaining a ratio of the first quantity of intra-frame decoded blocks to the second quantity of inter-frame decoded blocks; and determining the target resolution according to a result of comparison between the ratio and a preset threshold. For example, a first resolution is used as the target resolution when the ratio is greater than the preset threshold; and a second resolution is used as the target resolution when the ratio is less than the preset threshold, the second resolution being greater than the first resolution. That is, when a quantity of inter-frame decoded blocks is larger, a ratio is smaller, and a higher resolution is used. Alternatively, in this embodiment, the determining, according to a relationship between a first quantity of intra-frame decoded blocks and a second quantity of inter-frame decoded blocks, a target resolution used for decoding the target video frame may include, but is not limited to: obtaining the first quantity of intra-frame decoded blocks and the second quantity of inter-frame decoded blocks in the reference frame; using a first resolution as the target resolution when the first quantity is greater than the second quantity and a difference between the first quantity and the second quantity is greater than a preset threshold; and using a second resolution as the target resolution when the difference between the first quantity and the second quantity is less than the preset threshold, the second resolution being greater than the first resolution. That is, when the first quantity is greater than the second quantity, and as a quantity of inter-frame decoded blocks increases, a difference between the first quantity and the second quantity decreases, and a higher resolution is used].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the target resolution process of Gao with the process of Chen in order to provide improved image quality.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keith et al. (US 6757437 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 1, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen may not explicitly disclose ,wherein fixedly quantizing the zone comprises truncating samples belonging to the zone.
However, Keith discloses ,wherein fixedly quantizing the zone comprises truncating samples belonging to the zone [Keith: Col. 6, ll. 19-24: In one embodiment, an entropy coder may include a binary coder or a Huffman coder. fixed-length: A system that converts a specific block of data to a specific block of compressed data, e.g., BTC (block truncation coding) and some forms of VQ (vector quantization].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the specified processing of Keith with the processing of Chen in order to provide custom imaging, improving user experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8, and 10-11 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4: the specific responses to the specific conditions in combination with the specific restrictions has not been found in the art.
Regarding claim 8: the specific truncation requirements for the specific conditions in combination have not been found in the art.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the specific syntax for the specific conditions in combination have not been found in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482