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 .
Status of the Claims
Currently, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 9, 14 and 16 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments / Amendments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, see discussion below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112:
In the light of amendment to claims 8 & 14, the examiner withdraws the previously made rejection under 35 USC 112 (b).
In the light of amendment to claim 16, the examiner withdraws the previously made rejection under 35 USC 112 (d).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant argued that Watanabe or Roncero disclose or suggest "monitoring the IFCR for an increase in IFCR and in response to determining that the increase in the IFCR is above a relative change threshold, decreasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames," in the manner recited in claim 1.
As to the above argument, Watanabe discloses monitoring inter-frame compression ratio (IFCR) in the plurality of video frames when encoder generates reconstructed frame 232 and encoded bit sequence at least in part via inter-frame coding of input video frame 212 using reconstructed frame 232 ([0033], FIG. 2 & FIG. 5, Step 520).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watanabe further discloses increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames during inter-frame coding of a subsequent input video frame of the sequence of input video frames, using the upscaled subsequent reconstructed frame (i.e., coded at original resolution) as a reference frame ([0048], Step 572).
In addition to Watanabe, Roncero Izquierdo teaches in response to determining that the IFCR of a video frame is below a first threshold, increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames with statistics from the previous frame having a same type of the current frame are used by the rate control [resolution level] to set the appropriate compression ratio for the current frame and Frame 260 possibly needs a higher compression ratio and an increased number of allocated bits to accommodate the unexpected change in the motion patterns as well as their longer length ([0004] ; [0045], FIG. 2).
Roncero Izquierdo also teaches decreasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames and monitoring the IFCR for an increase in IFCR and in response to determining that the increase in the IFCR is above a relative change threshold when complexity of the previously encoded frame may be used to control the compression ratio for the current frame while using the previously allocated bits with a goal of remaining within the bit rate and latency constraints , ([0004]).
It should be further noted that Applicant has not presented any specific arguments with regards to the rejections of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection with regards to above arguments.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 20230070021, hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Roncero Izquierdo et al. (US 20120281756, hereinafter Roncero Izquierdo).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of video frames ([0019], FIG. 2, Camera 292 generates input video frames 212, each of which are differentiated by a respective frame-counter index t);
monitoring inter-frame compression ratio (IFCR) in the plurality of video frames ([0033], FIG. 2 & FIG. 5, Step 520, encoder generates reconstructed frame 232 and encoded bit sequence at least in part via inter-frame coding of input video frame 212 using reconstructed frame 232).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watanabe further discloses increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames ([0048], Step 572, inter-frame coding of a subsequent input video frame of the sequence of input video frames, using the upscaled subsequent reconstructed frame (i.e., coded at original resolution) as a reference frame).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the IFCR of a video frame is below a first threshold, increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames ; and monitoring the IFCR for an increase in IFCR and in response to determining that the increase in the IFCR is above a relative change threshold, decreasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roncero Izquierdo teaches in response to determining that the IFCR of a video frame is below a first threshold, increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames ([0004], Statistics from the previous frame having a same type of the current frame are used by the rate control [resolution level] to set the appropriate compression ratio for the current frame; [0045], FIG. 2, Frame 260 possibly needs a higher compression ratio and an increased number of allocated bits to accommodate the unexpected change in the motion patterns as well as their longer length).
and monitoring the IFCR for an increase in IFCR and in response to determining that the increase in the IFCR is above a relative change threshold, decreasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames ([0004], The complexity of the previously encoded frame may be used to control the compression ratio for the current frame while using the previously allocated bits with a goal of remaining within the bit rate and latency constraints).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of determining that monitoring inter-frame compression ratio (IFCR) as taught by Roncero Izquierdo ([00045]) into the encoding & decoding system of Watanabe in order to provide systems for a complexity change detection process for a video transmission system that detects and minimizes the quality degradation due to the presence of complexity changes in predicting video images while not severely impacting the rate control for the system (Roncero Izquierdo, [0010]).
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 1, Roncero Izquierdo discloses wherein the increase in the resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames is based on an amount of decrease in the IFCR ([0045], FIG. 2, Frame 260 possibly needs a higher compression ratio and an increased number of allocated bits to accommodate the unexpected change in the motion patterns as well as their longer length). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 1, Roncero Izquierdo discloses wherein increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames further comprises increasing the resolution level of recording the plurality of video frames from 480p to 1080p ([0031], Digital media renderer 132 receives decoded signal 130 and displays the video data content to the user with a high-definition television having display resolutions of 1,280.times.720 pixels (720p) or 1,920.times.1,080 pixels (1080i/1080p). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 1, Roncero Izquierdo discloses further comprising monitoring a decrease in the IFCR and in response to determining that a decrease in the IFCR is below a relative change threshold, increasing a resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames ([0045], FIG. 2, Frame 260 possibly needs a higher compression ratio and an increased number of allocated bits to accommodate the unexpected change in the motion patterns as well as their longer length and the rate control of system 100 may adjust accordingly when the complexity change is detected). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 1, Roncero Izquierdo discloses further comprising in response to determining that the IFCR is above a second threshold for a predetermined amount of time, decreasing the resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames ([0033] FIG. 2 depicts image frames 202, 230 and 260 of a video transmission according to the disclosed embodiments. In the sequence of images shown, frame 260 represents a complexity change due to increased motion vectors at time ) The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 6, Roncero Izquierdo discloses wherein the first threshold is different than the second threshold ([0033] FIG. 2 depicts image frames 202, 230 and 260 of a video transmission according to the disclosed embodiments. In the sequence of images shown, frame 260 represents a complexity change due to increased motion vectors at time ) The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 1,
Roncero Izquierdo discloses further comprising: monitoring the velocity of change in the IFCR; and in response to determining that the velocity of change in the IFCR is negative and that an absolute velocity of change in the IFCR is above a threshold velocity, further increasing the resolution level of recording of the plurality of video frames threshold ([0033] FIG. 2 depicts image frames 202, 230 and 260 of a video transmission according to the disclosed embodiments. In the sequence of images shown, frame 260 represents a complexity change due to increased motion vectors at time ) The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9-14, Computer-readable storage media claims 9-14 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-2, 4-6 & 8, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claims 15-20, Method claims 15-20 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-6, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
The IFCR is generated by a network video recorder (NVR) during inter-frame encoding as recited in the Claim 16 is also with in the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
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 Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at (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 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights