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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the maximum value of the first data amount" in Claim 1 from which claim 15 depends there is no ‘first data amount’ mentioned for claim 15 to refer to, hence, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the ‘maximum value of first data amount’ as ‘the maximum number of key frames in the encoded sub-video frames’ which the examiner believes to be the intention of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei et al (2017/0099491).
In regard to claim 1 Lei discloses a video transmission method, wherein the method is applied to an encoding end (Lei Fig. 1 note encoding and transmitting an encoded data stream), and the method comprises:
obtaining a video frame to be encoded, the video frame to be encoded being any video frame in a video encoded except the first frame (Lei Figs. 1-2 and prs 36-37 note obtaining a plurality of video frames);
dividing the video frame to be encoded into a first preset number of sub-video frames (Lei Fig. 3 and pars 41 note dividing a video frame into a plurality of block lines);
encoding each sub-video frame respectively to obtain the first preset number of encoded sub-video frames, and sending the encoded sub-video frames to a decoding end, wherein the number of key frames in the encoded sub-video frames is less than the first preset number (Lei Fig. 4 and pars 44-50 note intra slice width setting unit which determines the number of block lines to be coded using intra coding [key frame coding], the number of intra coded lines being less than a target number TargetInfo, further note Fig. 2 and generally pars 36-93 for details of encoding block lines).
In regard to claim 15 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lei further discloses that the maximum value of the number of key frames is the first predetermined number minus one (Lei pars Fig. 4 and pars 46-50 note at intra slice width occupying less than all of the frame).
In regard to claim 18 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lei further discloses that dividing the video frame to be encoded into the first predetermined number of sub-video frames comprises:
dividing the video frame to be encoded evenly into the first predetermined number of sub-video frames (Lei Fig. 3 note frame divided into even sized blocks and block lines).
In regard to claim 19 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lei further discloses that dividing the video frame to be encoded into the first predetermined number of video frames comprises:
dividing objects of different brightness, different image or different resolution of image data carried in the video frame to be encoded into the first predetermined number of sub-video frames (Lei par. 40 note leading picture including different brightness values, further note par. 46 subjects [objects] in the leading picture, finally note Fig. 3 and par. 41 the subjects and brightness variations of the leading picture are divided into a predetermined number blocks and block lines [sub-video frames]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei, Kadono (2010/0303153) and Mukerjee et al (2005/0013365).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lei discloses a gradual intra refresh technique including encoding each frame as a key frame with some sub-video frames encoded as key frames and some sub-video frames encoded as non-key frames. It is noted that Lei does not disclose encoding non-key frames. However Kadono discloses a gradual intra refresh in which key frames are interspersed with non-key frames (Kadono Fig. 17 and pars 252-254 note pictures where no I-slice is inserted e.g. images b, d and f).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including non-key frames as taught by Kadono in the gradual intra refresh of Lei in order to improve compression efficiency as suggested by Kadono (Kadono par. 256).
It is further noted that neither Lei nor Kadono disclose determining data amounts for coding a frame as a key frame and a non-Key frame. However, Mukerjee discloses determining a first data amount and a second data amount corresponding to the video frame to be encoded, wherein the first data amount is a data mount for encoding the video frame to be encoded as a key frame, and the second data amount is a data amount for encoding the video frame to be encoded as a non-key frame (Mukerjee pars 141-145 note par. 144 note determining it is cheaper to encoder a frame as an intra frame [key frame] than to encode the frame as an inter frame [non-key frame]) ;
determining a frame type of the video frame to be encoded based on the first data amount and the second data amount (Mukerjee note par 144 coding a B/I intra when it is cheaper in terms of cost);
encoding each sub-video frame respectively according to the frame type (Mukerjee par. 144 note coding entire frame as a B/I frame)
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize the advantage of determining the relative costs of encoding a video frame as a key frame and a non-key frame and selecting a frame type according to the costs as taught by Mukerjee in the key frame and non-key frame coding of Lei in view of Kadono in order to allow for temporal scalability as suggested by Mukerjee (Mukerjee par. 144).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Mukerjee further discloses that determining the frame type of the video frame to be encoded based on the first data amount and the second data amount comprises:
in response to determining that the first data amount is greater than or equal to the second data amount, determining the frame type of the video frame to be encoded as a non-key frame and in response to determining that the first data amount is less than the second data amount, determining the frame type of the video frame to be encoded as a key frame (Mukerjee par. 144 note coding B/I frames when the cost of coding the frame as an intra frame [key frame] is cheaper, further note par. 142 regular, inter, B frame encoding [non-key frame] is used in other cases).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lei discloses dividing a frame into block lines (Lei Fig. 3). It is noted that Lei does not disclose dividing a video frame based on an amount of data coded for the video frame. However, Kadono discloses:
determining a data amount of the video frame to be encoded (Kadono par. 270 note determining that a high compression rate can be used and hence a low data amount needs to be transmitted);
in response to the data amount being greater than a preset data amount, dividing the video frame to be encoded into a first number of sub-video frames to be encoded (Kadono par. 269 note prior embodiments 1 and 2 shown in Figs 12 and 14 dividing a frame into block lines);
in response to the data amount being not greater than the present data amount, dividing the video frame to be encoded into a second number of sub-video frames to be encoded, wherein the second number is less than the first number (Kadono Fig. 20 and pars 269-270 note dividing a frame into half block lines when high compression is used and a low data amount is transmitted).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating adaptive frame division as taught by Kadono in the invention of Lei in order to allow for improved compression efficiency as suggested by Kadono (Kadono par. 270).
In regard to claim 17 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Kadono further discloses that encoding each sub-video separately according to the frame type comprises:
in response to determining that the frame type of the video frame to be encoded is a non-key frame, encoding each sub-video frame as a non-key frame (Kadono Fig. 17 and pars 252-254 note inter predicted [non-key frame] pictures where no I-slice is inserted hence each slice is coded as an inter predicted slice) .
Claim(s) 6 9-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Esenlik et al (20140153636).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that Lei does not disclose details of adding sequence numbers to sub-video frames. However, Esenlik discloses adding a sequence number mark to each sub-video frame in turn, the sequence number mark being used for guiding the decoding end to merge the sub-video frames (Esenlik Fig. 1 and par. 70 note slices [sub video frames] marked with sequence numbers s1-s3, also note Fig. 12 and pars 182-187 showing marked slices used in coding and decoding to ensure slices are placed in the correct order).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of grouping the blocks of Lei into marked slices as taught by Esenlik to gain the advantage of identifying groups of blocks for intra refresh in coding order as suggested by Esenlik (Esenlik par. 79).
In regard to claim 9 Lei in view of Esenlik discloses a video transmission method, wherein the method is applied to a decoding end, and the method comprises:
obtaining a first preset number of encoded sub-video frames transmitted from a encoding end (Esenlik Fig. 10 and pars 163-173 note receiving an encoded bitstream and decoding slices [sub-video frames]), wherein the number of key frames in the encoded sub-video frames is less than the first preset number (Lei Fig. 4 note selected block lines less than all block lines are intra coded [key frames] and Esenlik Figs 2-4 note only selected slices in each frame are intra coded [key frames]);
decoding each encoded sub-video frame respectively to obtain the first preset number of sub-video frames (Esenlik Fig. 10 and par. 173 note decoding slices [sub-video frames]);
merging the first preset number of sub-video frames into a target video frame (Esenlik Fig. 12 and pars 182-187 note slices merged into a decoded image).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Esenlik further discloses that merging the first preset number of sub-video frames into the target video frame comprises:
merging the first present number of sub-video frames into the target video frame in the order of receiving each encoded sub-video frame (Esenlik Fig. 12 and pars 182-187 note slices are merged in order into a decoded image).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Esenlik further discloses that merging the first preset number of sub-video frames into the target video frame comprises:
extracting sequence number marks carried in each encoded sub-video frame (Esenlik Fig. 1 and par. 70 note slices [sub video frames] marked with sequence numbers s1-s3, also note Fig. 12 and pars 182-187 showing marked slices used in coding and decoding to ensure slices are placed in the correct order);
merging the first predetermined number of sub-video frames into the target video frame in the order of the sequence number marks (Esenlik Fig. 12 note decoded video frame with slices merged in order of the sequence number marks s1-s4).
In regard to claim 20 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Lei further discloses that the encoded sub-video frames are obtained by the encoding end dividing the original video frame to be encoded into multiple sub-video frames according to preset division rules and then encoding each sub-video frame separately (Lei Fig. 3 note encoder dividing each frame into blocks and block lines).
Claim 12 relates to a system including the encoding system of claim 1 and the decoding system of claim 9. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1 and 9 above for the rejection of claim 12 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Reddy (10,623,830).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lei further discloses a leading frame (Lei pars 38-40). It is noted that Lei does not disclose details of encoding a first frame. However, Reddy discloses that the first encoded video frame of a video is encoded as a target key frame sent to a decoding end (Reddy col. 3 lines 56-65 note the first frame sent from a transmitter to an end point must be a key/intra coded frame).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of coding the first frame of Lei as a key frame as suggested by Reddy in order to allow subsequent frames to use the key frame for prediction as suggested by Reddy (Reddy col. 3 lines 63-65 note P and B frames sent after the first frame depend upon the initial frame).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 16 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:
Claim 4 which depends from claim 2 requires determining a frame type for encoding a video frame based on a comparison of data amounts for encoding the video frame as a key frame and a non-key frame and that in response to encoding a frame as a key frame, determining a number of target sub-video frames less than the preset number to be encoded as key sub-video frames and the remainder of the sub-video frames to be coded as non-key frames.
The closest arts are Lei, Kadono and Mukerjee. Lei and Kadono disclose key frames that are encoded with a mix of key and non-key frame sub-video frames. Kadono further discloses encoding non-key frames. However neither Lei or Kadono disclose determining to encode a frame as a key frame or a non-key frame depending on a comparison of data amounts as required by claim 2. Mukerjee discloses determining whether or not to code a non-key frame B picture as a key frame B/I picture based on whether the cost of the B/I picture is lower than the B picture, however when selecting to code a B/I picture Mukerjee teaches that the entire picture is coded as a key-picture and does not have non-key sub-video frames. Thus the combination does not disclose both selecting key frame encoding for a video frame based on a comparison of data amounts for key and non-key frame coding and encoding a key-frame using both key-frame and non-key frame sub-video pictures as required by claim 4.
Claim 5 similarly depends form claim 2 requires performing key frame and non-key frame data amount comparisons in response to the data mounts meeting preset numerical conditions. Mukerjee discloses selecting key frame encoding for a B/I picture when it has a lower cost but does not disclose any details of cost values meeting preset numerical conditions prior to making a comparison.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and is allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080247469 A1 Vadapalli; Sarat Chandra et al.
US 20110122943 A1 Kadono; Shinya
US 20120275518 A1 Kadono; Shinya et al.
US 20180176603 A1 FUJIMOTO; YUJI
US 20200382781 A1 MAO; Xunan et al.
US 20210120238 A1 EDPALM; Viktor
US 9210381 B2 Yang; Kyeong Ho et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights