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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application No. 18/913,935 filed on 10/11/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/11/2024 is/are considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/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.
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 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) 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beheydt et al. (US 2019/0253763).
Consider claims 1, 9, and 17, Beheydt teaches method of video bitrate adjustment, an electronic device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements acts of video bitrate adjustment (Figs.1-2, 4-5, Paragraph 0039-0043), the acts comprising:
one or more processors (processing unit 510-Fig.5, Paragraph 0038);
a storage device storing one or more programs (memory 515 – Fig.5, Paragraph 0038),
wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to implement acts of video bitrate adjustment (Paragraph 0039-0043), the acts comprising:
analyzing and determining, based on a video frame, a current picture quality evaluation result of a target video stream in a current bitrate regulation period (Paragraph 0024 teaches aggregation window comprising the plurality of video frames may comprise any time period and the plurality of video frames from transport stream 115 within the aggregation window may comprise any number of frames. Paragraph 0025 teaches the plurality of video quality values may indicate a video quality for corresponding respective ones of the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window. Encoder 105 may provide statistics on the encoding process. These statistics may comprise the actual video quality values, i.e., the plurality of video quality values, corresponding to ones of the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window. Paragraph 0026 teaches encoder 105 may determine a determined conformance rate value for the aggregation window. The determined conformance rate value may indicate a number of the plurality of video quality values that have the following characteristics: equal to the target video quality value or greater than the target video quality value. In other words, the determined conformance rate value may comprise the number of frames in the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window that have a corresponding video quality that meets or exceeds the target video quality value of the CQ encoding in the aggregation window); and
determining a target bitrate based on a predetermined target picture quality evaluation standard associated with a bitrate (Paragraph 0018 teaches the second use-case may be where the video quality target may be pre-defined and kept constant. In this second use-case, the bitrate cap value may be adjusted in such a way that the video quality target may be met at a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 80% of the time. Paragraph 0027 teaches encoder 105 may use the conformance rate value to adjust at least one of the encoding parameters used in the constant quality encoding of source 110. Encoder may fine-tune, i.e., adjust, at least one of the encoding parameters to reach a pre-defined goal) and/or a picture quality change trend of the current picture quality evaluation result relative to a historical picture quality evaluation result in a historical bitrate regulation period.
Consider claims 2, 10, and 18, Beheydt teaches wherein analyzing and determining, based on the video frame, the current picture quality evaluation result of the target video stream in the current bitrate regulation period comprises:
determining, based on each pre-encoded video frame and a corresponding post-encoded video frame of the target video stream, a predetermined picture quality evaluation parameter of each video frame in the current bitrate regulation period; and performing time domain pooling processing on the predetermined picture quality evaluation parameter of each video frame, to obtain the current picture quality evaluation result (Paragraph 0025 teaches while performing the CQ encoding, encoder 105 may provide statistics on the encoding process. These statistics may comprise the actual video quality values, i.e., the plurality of video quality values, corresponding to ones of the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window. Paragraph 0026 teaches the determined conformance rate value may indicate a number of the plurality of video quality values that have the following characteristics: equal to the target video quality value or greater than the target video quality value. In other words, the determined conformance rate value may comprise the number of frames in the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window that have a corresponding video quality that meets or exceeds the target video quality value of the CQ encoding in the aggregation window. Paragraph 0028 teaches the aggregation window is filled with per-frame actual video quality values before the determined conformance rate may be determined).
Consider claims 3, 11, and 19, Beheydt teaches wherein determining the target bitrate based on the predetermined target picture quality evaluation standard associated with the bitrate comprises:
determining whether a difference between the current picture quality evaluation result and a predetermined target picture quality evaluation standard corresponding to a current bitrate is within a range of a predetermined picture quality control error; and in response to the difference between the current picture quality evaluation result and the predetermined target picture quality evaluation standard corresponding to the current bitrate being greater than the predetermined picture quality control error, adjusting the current bitrate based on a predetermined bitrate adjustment step to determine the target bitrate (Paragraph 0018 teaches the second use-case may be where the video quality target may be pre-defined and kept constant. In this second use-case, the bitrate cap value may be adjusted in such a way that the video quality target may be met at a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 80% of the time. Paragraph 0026 teaches the determined conformance rate value may indicate a number of the plurality of video quality values that have the following characteristics: equal to the target video quality value or greater than the target video quality value. In other words, the determined conformance rate value may comprise the number of frames in the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window that have a corresponding video quality that meets or exceeds the target video quality value of the CQ encoding in the aggregation window. Paragraph 0027 teaches encoder 105 may use the conformance rate value to adjust at least one of the encoding parameters used in the constant quality encoding of source 110. Encoder may fine-tune, i.e., adjust, at least one of the encoding parameters to reach a pre-defined goal. Paragraph 0028 teaches the aggregation window is filled with per-frame actual video quality values before the determined conformance rate may be determined. Target video quality value or the bitrate cap value are changed by the fine-tuning process because the target conformance rate is not met).
Consider claims 4, 12, and 20, Beheydt teaches wherein determining the target bitrate based on the picture quality change trend of the current picture quality evaluation result relative to the historical picture quality evaluation result in the historical bitrate regulation period comprises: determining a video frame picture quality fluctuation degree based on a standard deviation between the current picture quality evaluation result and the historical picture quality evaluation result; and determining, according to the video frame picture quality fluctuation degree, a target bitrate of a next bitrate regulation period adjacent to the current bitrate regulation period based on the current bitrate (Claim 1 recites the following alternative limitation(s): determining a target bitrate based on a predetermined target picture quality evaluation standard associated with a bitrate and/or a picture quality change trend of the current picture quality evaluation result relative to a historical picture quality evaluation result in a historical bitrate regulation period.
“determining a target bitrate based on a predetermined target picture quality evaluation standard associated with a bitrate” hereinafter referred to as limitation A. “a picture quality change trend of the current picture quality evaluation result relative to a historical picture quality evaluation result in a historical bitrate regulation period” hereinafter referred to as limitation B.
Beheydt teaches limitation A, see claims 1, 9, and 17, thereby teaching one of the alternative limitation(s).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 17 which recites additional limitations to further modify the alternative of limitation B. From a claim interpretation standard, claims 4, 12, and 20 includes all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 and further modifies the alternative limitation B.
Accordingly, claims 4, 12, and 20 are met by reference Beheydt disclosing limitation A, since the alternative limitation B is also written in the alternative “and/or”, and it is not required to be taught by Beheydt, since Beheydt already teaches limitation A).
Consider claims 5 and 13, Beheydt teaches wherein in response to the current bitrate being a bitrate value that has undergone a bitrate reduction, determining, according to the video frame picture quality fluctuation degree, a target bitrate of a next bitrate regulation period adjacent to the current bitrate regulation period based on the current bitrate comprises: matching a target bitrate regulation amplitude based on the video frame picture quality fluctuation degree; and performing a bitrate callback on the current bitrate based on the target bitrate regulation amplitude, to determine a target bitrate of the next bitrate regulation period adjacent to the current bitrate regulation period (As claims 5 and 13 recites additional limitation to further modify claims 4 and 12, which pertains to alternative limitation B. The same reasoning applies, please see Examiner’s response in claims 4, 12, and 20 above, in regards to claims 5 and 13).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beheydt et al. (US 2019/0253763) in view of Chandrashekar et al. (US 2022/0272394).
Consider claims 6 and 14, Beheydt teaches the acts further comprising:
in accordance with a determination that the current bitrate is a bitrate upper limit value in a predetermined bit-table, comparing the current picture quality evaluation result with a predetermined target picture quality reference interval; and in accordance with a determination that the current picture quality evaluation result is lower than a lower limit of the predetermined target picture quality reference interval, adjusting the bitrate upper limit value (Paragraph 0018 teaches he second use-case may be where the video quality target may be pre-defined and kept constant. In this second use-case, the bitrate cap value may be adjusted in such a way that the video quality target may be met at a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 80% of the time. Paragraph 0026 teaches the determined conformance rate value may indicate a number of the plurality of video quality values that have the following characteristics: equal to the target video quality value or greater than the target video quality value. In other words, the determined conformance rate value may comprise the number of frames in the plurality of video frames in the aggregation window that have a corresponding video quality that meets or exceeds the target video quality value of the CQ encoding in the aggregation window. Paragraph 0027 teaches encoder 105 may use the conformance rate value to adjust at least one of the encoding parameters used in the constant quality encoding of source 110. Encoder may fine-tune, i.e., adjust, at least one of the encoding parameters to reach a pre-defined goal. Paragraph 0028 teaches the aggregation window is filled with per-frame actual video quality values before the determined conformance rate may be determined. Target video quality value or the bitrate cap value are changed by the fine-tuning process because the target conformance rate is not met. Paragraph 0014-0015 teaches ABR profiles that may be encoded at constant quality, CQ, where ABR profiles may have a certain resolution, framerate, and bitrate. Target video quality and bitrate cap value may be fine-tune, i.e. adjusted. Paragraph 0029 teaches bitrate cap value may be fixed, e.g. user configuration, and the target video quality value may be adjusted. For an aggregation window, a particular bitrate cap value is set, so the video frame(s) that don’t meet the corresponding video quality actually needed to be encoded at a higher bitrate. If too many frame(s) in the aggregation window do not conform, thus causing the conformance rate to not meet target, the bitrate cap value will be adjusted).
Beheydt does not explicitly teach determination that a network state satisfies a predetermined high-quality network evaluation standard.
In an analogous art, Chandrashekar teaches determination that a network state satisfies a predetermined high-quality network evaluation standard (Paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Beheydt to include determination that a network state satisfies a predetermined high-quality network evaluation standard, as taught by Chandrashekar, for the advantage of ensuring certain requirements are met, so the system can evaluate and take next steps, according to determinations.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beheydt et al. (US 2019/0253763) in view of Ni et al. (US 2021/0144080).
Consider claims 8 and 16, Beheydt teaches the acts further comprising: starting a bitrate regulation period; and a predetermined bitrate regulation period starting (Paragraph 0024-0026).
Behydt does not explicitly teach detecting a fluctuation state of a network bandwidth in a predetermined time window before starting; and determining whether the fluctuation state of the network bandwidth satisfies a predetermined standard adapted to a plurality of transmission protocols simultaneously (Paragraph 0049 teaches a bandwidth estimator that may estimate the available bandwidth. As well as a round-trip time estimator. Different parameters may be adopted to judge network bandwidth and stability. A database may store historical network condition metrics. Paragraph 0062 teaches reviewing historical bandwidth readings, and if it suggests stable bandwidth/high round-trip time, then system determines action should be performed. When system is confident that network bandwidth is stable and round-trip times are above a threshold, determines action can be performed. Paragraph 0104 teaches different protocols that may be utilized over the network. Historical bandwidth readings pertain to a segment, thus, would be within the time window of the length of the segment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Beheydt to include detecting a fluctuation state of a network bandwidth in a predetermined time window before starting; and determining whether the fluctuation state of the network bandwidth satisfies a predetermined standard adapted to a plurality of transmission protocols simultaneously, as taught by Ni, for the advantage of taking action when there is better stability within the network, offering better predictability, and expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425