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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection to claim 20 has been withdrawn in view of current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026, regarding claims 1 and 20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geus, 988 F.2d 1181, 26USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir. 1993). In this case, the Applicant argues the first video frame and the second video frame are two adjacent video frames and are different video frames. However, nowhere in the claim the above description between the video frames is recited. US 2023/0254533 (hereinafter “Le Scouarnec”) teaches a base layer frame and an enhancement layer frame which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are being considered as the first video frame and the second video frame.
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026, regarding claim 13, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues US 2015/0195531 (hereinafter “Maegawa”) fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the first video frame comprises at least one image unit arranged in order, and a target image unit is an initial image unit in the first video frame … wherein the indication information is in a bitstream of the target image unit”. The Examiner disagrees.
Maegawa controls the encoding on the frame image based on scene change information (par. 73). It is noted a person with ordinary skill in the art would know a frame image/video frame is comprised of units such as blocks or coding units and one of said blocks or coding units present in the video frame is going to necessarily be an initial/first block/coding unit. Maegawa further adds additional information indicating the occurrence of the scene change to the data of the frame image before or after the scene change (par. 74). As noted before, a person with ordinary skill in the art would know that a to be encoded frame image will necessarily have a target image block/coding unit. By Maegawa adding the additional information to the data of the frame image, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the indication information is in the bitstream where the target image unit is part of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 13 the indication information is in a bitstream of the target image unit. But in claim 14 the indication information is in a bitstream of the first video frame or in a target bitstream. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maegawa et al. (US 2015/0195531) in view of Le Scouarnec et al. (US 2023/0254533).
Regarding claim 1 Maegawa discloses a method for processing video frames, wherein the method comprises:
detecting whether a first video frame is a scene switching frame (acquiring scene change information – [0059]); in response to determining that the first video frame is the scene switching frame, continuing to display a second video frame (a period when the encoded data of the frame image before the scene change is being output may be dynamically configured according to an actual progressing state of the encoding processing on the frame image after the scene change, or may be preset based on a standard processing time of the encoding processing on the intra-frame; outputting the encoded data of the frame image before the scene change to the stream sender for a predetermined number of frames corresponding to the encoding processing time of the intra-frame – [0060-0061]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose switching display from the second video frame to the first video frame based on the first video frame meeting a preset display condition, wherein the second video frame is a video frame that is last displayed before a bitstream of the first video frame is received.
In his disclosure Le Scouarnec teaches switching display from the second video frame to the first video frame based on the first video frame meeting a preset display condition, wherein the second video frame is a video frame that is last displayed before a bitstream of the first video frame is received (the requested BL segment may be received (e.g., decoded and played out) by the receiver and depending on the available bandwidth, the requested EL segment, being transmitted in a lower priority than the requested BL segment, may be timely received, for being decoded and successfully played out by the receiver – [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Le Scouarnec into the teachings of Maegawa because such incorporation would yield the predicted result of improving the experience of the user by improving the continuity and quality of the displayed video.
Regarding claim 2 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the detecting whether a first video frame is a scene switching frame comprises: receiving indication information; and detecting whether the indication information comprises a first identifier, wherein the first identifier indicates whether the first video frame is the scene switching frame (scene change information – [0059]; adding additional information indicating the occurrence of the scene change to the data of the frame image before or after the scene change; any form of the additional information is possible – [0074]).
Regarding claim 3 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein: the indication information is in the bitstream of the first video frame; or the indication information is in a target bitstream, wherein the target bitstream is a bitstream that is last received before the bitstream of the first video frame is received (when the renderer detects the occurrence of the scene change in the generated frame images, it adds additional information indicating the occurrence of the scene change to the data of the frame image before or after the scene change (regardless of before or after as long as it is compatible with a configuration of the scene change detector mentioned later) – [0074]).
Regarding claim 4 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the first video frame comprises at least one image unit arranged in order, a target image unit is an initial image unit in the first video frame, and the indication information is in a bitstream of the target image unit (frame images – [0057-0061]; intra-frames and inter-frames – [0057-0061]).
Regarding claim 5 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein: the target image unit is an image slice or an image tile; or the target image unit comprises a plurality of image blocks (intra-frames and inter-frames – [0057-0061]; a person with ordinary skill in the art would know that image frames comprises a plurality of image blocks).
Regarding claim 8 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein timing of a target bitstream is later than timing of a bitstream of the second video frame (a period when the encoded data of the frame image before the scene change is being output may be dynamically configured according to an actual progressing state of the encoding processing on the frame image after the scene change, or may be preset based on a standard processing time of the encoding processing on the intra-frame; outputting the encoded data of the frame image before the scene change to the stream sender for a predetermined number of frames corresponding to the encoding processing time of the intra-frame – [0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 9 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the preset display condition comprises at least one of the following: determining that bitstreams of all image units in the first video frame are received; or determining that the first video frame meets a quality condition.
In his disclosure Le Scouarnec teaches the preset display condition comprises at least one of the following: determining that bitstreams of all image units in the first video frame are received; or determining that the first video frame meets a quality condition (the requested BL segment may be received (e.g., decoded and played out) by the receiver and depending on the available bandwidth, the requested EL segment, being transmitted in a lower priority than the requested BL segment, may be timely received, for being decoded and successfully played out by the receiver – [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Le Scouarnec into the teachings of Maegawa because such incorporation would yield the predicted result of improving the experience of the user by improving the continuity and quality of the displayed video.
The Examiner notes claim 9 is written in an alternative form. The Examiner has selected the alternative “determining that bitstreams of all image units in the first video frame are received”.
Claim 10 further limits an alternative limitation not selected by the Examiner. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are not being considered.
Regarding claim 11 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the first video frame is not the scene switching frame, and after receiving a bitstream of any image unit in the first video frame, displaying a reconstructed image of the any image unit based on the bitstream of the any image unit (when it is not determined that the scene change occurs, the encoder 325 encodes the frame as the inter-frame – [0064]).
Regarding claim 12 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the first video frame is the scene switching frame, and the method further comprises: for the bitstream of the any image unit in the first video frame: after determining that the bitstream of the any image unit meets a feedback condition, sending feedback information corresponding to the any image unit, wherein the feedback condition is that an amount of enhancement layer image data comprised in the bitstream of the any image unit is greater than or equal to a preset amount threshold (when it is determined that the scene change occurs, the manager controls the encoder, and encodes the frame after the scene change as the intra-frame – [0064]; when the frame after the scene change is encoded as the intra-frame, the manager determines whether or not the encoding is completed in the output timing of the relevant frame; when it is determined that the encoding is not completed, the manager controls and causes the encoder to output the encoded data of the frame image before the scene change to the stream sender – Figure6, [0065-0067]).
Claim 20 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maegawa et al. (US 2015/0195531) in view of Le Scouarnec et al. (US 2023/0254533) further in view of Aristarkhov et al. (US 2021/0392352).
Regarding claim 6 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 5. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the indication information is in header information of base layer image data of the bitstream of the target image unit, and wherein the header information is at a network abstraction layer corresponding to the bitstream of the target image unit.
In his disclosure Aristarkhov teaches the indication information is in header information of base layer image data of the bitstream of the target image unit, and wherein the header information is at a network abstraction layer corresponding to the bitstream of the target image unit (indicating that a scene change has been assigned to the base layer – [0052, 0061, 0067-0068]; the frame layers and reference assignments may be transmitted with the compressed image data to decoders, whether placed in frame, slice, or other frame partition headers, overhead, between frames, in NAL units of the frames, and/or as metadata being transmitted with the frames – [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Aristarkhov into the teachings of Maegawa as modified because such incorporation improves performance and quality (par. 72).
Regarding claim 7 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 6. However, fails to explicitly disclose the header information is in header information of the network abstraction layer; or the header information is in a subject of the network abstraction layer and is in slice header information of the target image unit.
In his disclosure Aristarkhov teaches the header information is in header information of the network abstraction layer; or the header information is in a subject of the network abstraction layer and is in slice header information of the target image unit (indicating that a scene change has been assigned to the base layer – [0052, 0061, 0067-0068]; the frame layers and reference assignments may be transmitted with the compressed image data to decoders, whether placed in frame, slice, or other frame partition headers, overhead, between frames, in NAL units of the frames, and/or as metadata being transmitted with the frames – [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Aristarkhov into the teachings of Maegawa as modified because such incorporation improves performance and quality (par. 72).
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) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maegawa et al. (US 2015/0195531).
Regarding claim 13 Maegawa discloses a method for processing video frames, wherein the method comprises:
determining whether a first video frame is a scene switching frame (scene change information – [0059]), wherein the first video frame comprises at least one image unit arranged in order, and a target image unit is an initial image unit on the first video frame (provide the scene change information to the manager 350, and the manager 350 controls the encoding on the frame image in the encoder 325 based on the scene change information – [0073]; a person with ordinary skill in the art would know a frame image/video frame is comprised of units such as blocks or coding units and one of said blocks or coding units present in the video frame is going to necessarily be an initial/first block/coding unit); and
in response to determining that the first video frame is the scene switching frame, sending indication information, wherein the indication information is in a bitstream of the target image unit, the indication information comprises a first identifier, and the first identifier indicates that the first video frame is the scene switching frame (adding additional information indicating the occurrence of the scene change to the data of the frame image before or after the scene change; any form of the additional information is possible – [0074]; as noted before, a person with ordinary skill in the art would know that a frame image will necessarily have a target image block/coding unit; and Maegawa adds additional information to the data of the frame image; under the broadest reasonable interpretation the indication information is in the bitstream where the target image unit is part of).
Regarding claim 14 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein: the indication information is in a bitstream of the first video frame; or the indication information is in a target bitstream, wherein the target bitstream is a bitstream that is last sent before the bitstream of the first video frame is sent (when the renderer detects the occurrence of the scene change in the generated frame images, it adds additional information indicating the occurrence of the scene change to the data of the frame image before or after the scene change (regardless of before or after as long as it is compatible with a configuration of the scene change detector mentioned later) – [0074]).
Regarding claim 15 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the first video frame comprises at least one image unit arranged in order, a target image unit is an initial image unit in the first video frame, and the indication information is in a bitstream of the target image unit (frame images – [0057-0061]; intra-frames and inter-frames – [0057-0061]).
Regarding claim 16 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein: the image unit is an image slice or an image tile; or the image unit comprises a plurality of image blocks (intra-frames and inter-frames – [0057-0061]; a person with ordinary skill in the art would know that image frames comprises a plurality of image blocks).
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maegawa et al. (US 2015/0195531) in view of Aristarkhov et al. (US 2021/0392352).
Regarding claim 17 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 15. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein header information of base layer image data of the bitstream of the target image unit comprises the indication information, and wherein the header information is at a network abstraction layer corresponding to the bitstream of the target image unit.
In his disclosure Aristarkhov teaches header information of base layer image data of the bitstream of the target image unit comprises the indication information, and wherein the header information is at a network abstraction layer corresponding to the bitstream of the target image unit (indicating that a scene change has been assigned to the base layer – [0052, 0061, 0067-0068]; the frame layers and reference assignments may be transmitted with the compressed image data to decoders, whether placed in frame, slice, or other frame partition headers, overhead, between frames, in NAL units of the frames, and/or as metadata being transmitted with the frames – [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Aristarkhov into the teachings of Maegawa as modified because such incorporation improves performance and quality (par. 72).
Regarding claim 18 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 17. However, fails to explicitly disclose the header information is in header information of the network abstraction layer; or the header information is in a subject of the network abstraction layer and is in slice header information of the target image unit.
In his disclosure Aristarkhov teaches the header information is in header information of the network abstraction layer; or the header information is in a subject of the network abstraction layer and is in slice header information of the target image unit (indicating that a scene change has been assigned to the base layer – [0052, 0061, 0067-0068]; the frame layers and reference assignments may be transmitted with the compressed image data to decoders, whether placed in frame, slice, or other frame partition headers, overhead, between frames, in NAL units of the frames, and/or as metadata being transmitted with the frames – [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Aristarkhov into the teachings of Maegawa as modified because such incorporation improves performance and quality (par. 72).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maegawa et al. (US 2015/0195531) in view of Le Scouarnec et al. (US 2023/0254533).
Regarding claim 19 Maegawa discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the first video frame is the scene switching frame (when it is determined that the scene change occurs, the manager controls the encoder, and encodes the frame after the scene change as the intra-frame – [0064]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose a bitstream of each image unit in the first video frame comprises base layer image data and a first amount of enhancement layer image data, wherein the first amount is preset; or the first video frame is not the scene switching frame, a bitstream of each image unit comprises base layer image data and a second amount of enhancement layer image data, wherein the second amount is determined based on channel quality.
In his disclosure Le Scouarnec teaches a bitstream of each image unit in the first video frame comprises base layer image data and a first amount of enhancement layer image data, wherein the first amount is preset; or the first video frame is not the scene switching frame, a bitstream of each image unit comprises base layer image data and a second amount of enhancement layer image data, wherein the second amount is determined based on channel quality (the requested BL segment may be received (e.g., decoded and played out) by the receiver and depending on the available bandwidth, the requested EL segment, being transmitted in a lower priority than the requested BL segment, may be timely received, for being decoded and successfully played out by the receiver – [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Le Scouarnec into the teachings of Maegawa because such incorporation would yield the predicted result of improving the experience of the user by improving the continuity and quality of the displayed video.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights