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 .
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 8 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically claims 8 & 14 recites the limitation “the velocity of change in the IFCR” which is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by the “the velocity of change in the IFCR” since there is no description on what the velocity of change in the IFCR” is or is meant.
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 16 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.
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 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 1-20 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 increasing the resolution level in response to determining that monitoring inter-frame compression ratio (IFCR) in the plurality of video frames of a video frame is below a first threshold.
Roncero Izquierdo teaches increasing the resolution level in response to determining that monitoring inter-frame compression ratio (IFCR) in the plurality of video frames of a video frame is below a first threshold ([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).
PNG
media_image2.png
404
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 5, Watanabe in view of Roncero Izquierdo discloses the method of claim 4, Roncero Izquierdo discloses further comprising monitoring a decrease in the IFCR and in response to determining that an 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). 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.
Conclusion
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