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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both “server” and “user device” in Fig. 1A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification paragraph [0020] appears to recite typographical errors, where “In one embodiment, the server 11O obtains…” is assumed to be intended to recite, “In one embodiment, the server 110 obtains …”; and “Frame3:AL3(L2)+AL2(Ll)+AL4(L3)+AL5(L3) Frame4:AL2(L3)” is assumed to be intended to be on separate lines to avoid possible confusion that “Frame4” is used to determine “Frame3”.
Specification paragraph [0028] appears to recite typographical errors, where “As illustrated in Fig, 2, the video optimization processing method 200 includes steps S201 s202 …” where a punctuation mark assumed to be intended to be recited between “S201” and “s202”, e.g. “S201 ~ s202”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in the body of the claim, “the user device configured to: … ; and that utilizes the at least one image enhancement algorithm”, which appears to recite a typographical error, and the Examiner assumes “the user device configured to: … ; and . Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “user device configured to: receive” and “user device configured to: … that utilize” in claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the video playing software" in body of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends upon claims 1 and 2, which do not provide an antecedent basis for the term “video playing software”.
Claim 4, which depends upon claim 3, does not cure the noted lack of antecedent basis deficiency and thus incorporates the at issue indefinite subject matter and is similarly rejected.
For the purposes of further treating the claims on the merits, the Examiner assumes “a video playing software” is intended to be recited.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niikura et al. (US 2017/0301061), herein Niikura, in view of Abbas et al. (US 2017/0223368), herein Abbas.
Regarding claim 1, Niikura discloses a video optimization processing system, comprising:
a server (see Niikura Fig. 1 [0030], image transmitting apparatus) configured to:
compress a first video to generate a second video and a third video (see Niikura Fig. 6 and [0044], where the image transmitting apparatus receives a high-resolution input image and reduces the size of the input image to generate a full high definition (FHD) reduced image and a further reduced high definition (HD) image and encodes the HD image);
generate a difference information (see Niikura Fig. 6 and [0044], where the encoded HD image is decoded and image enlargement process is performed on the decoded image, and a difference is obtained between the image data after enlargement with the input image);
calculate, according to the difference information, at least one image enhancement algorithm and at least one enhancement parameter (see Niikura Fig. 6 [0044] where the difference is used to determine an enlargement parameter for the image enlarging process);
transmit, to a user device, the third video, the at least one image enhancement algorithm, and the at least one enhancement parameter (see Niikura [0041] and [0044], where the encoded data and the parameter is transmitted to the image receiving apparatus); and
the user device (see Niikura Fig. 1 [0030], image receiving apparatus) configured to:
receive the third video, the at least one image enhancement algorithm, and the at least one enhancement parameter (see Niikura [0044]-[0045], where the image receiving apparatus receives the encoded data and parameter and decodes the encoded image data according to the encoding method and performs the image enlargement processing using the parameter); and
that utilizes the at least one image enhancement algorithm and the at least one enhancement parameter to restore the third video to generate a fourth video, thereby playing the fourth video (see Niikura [0045], where the encoded data is decoded and enlarged using the parameter to generate the restored image and the restored image is reduced to the FHD size).
Niikura does not explicitly disclose that the server compares the third video and the second video to generate a difference information.
Abbas teaches in a related and pertinent apparatus and method for scalable, multi-resolution approach to digital video data compression (see Abbas Abstract), where an input image may be down sampled to obtain an intermediate fidelity (IF) input image and further down sampled and encoded to obtain a low fidelity (LF) output bitstream (see Abbas Fig. 6 and [0173]-[0176]), the encoded LF output bitstream is decoded and up sampled to obtain an IF reconstructed output (see Abbas [0176]), where an IF difference output is obtained between an intermediate layer input and an IF reconstructed output to be encoded to obtain an intermediate fidelity output bitstream (see Abbas Fig. 6 [0173]-[0178]), and that the system for encoding may be a server (see Abbas [0221]) and remote devices for decoding and displaying the video may be a user interface device (see Abbas [0224]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Abbas’s teachings of implementing multi-layer scalable encoding to the teachings of Niikura such that encoding parameters are determined based on differences between an enlarged and decoded image with a down sampled intermediate image layer (e.g. FHD reduced image).
This modification is rationalized as an application of a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In this instance, Niikura teaches a base system for transmitting encoded image data where high resolution input video image is reduced to form a FHD and encoded HD reduced images, and parameters are determined from difference between a decoded and enlarged HD image, the parameter and encoded HD reduced image is transmitted to a receiving apparatus to be restored and generate a FHD image to be displayed.
Abbas teaches a known technique in implementing a scalable, multi-resolution video compression where the difference output is obtained between an intermediate layer input and an IF reconstructed output to be encoded to obtain an intermediate fidelity output bitstream.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying Abbas’s known technique to Niikura’s teachings would have predictably yielded performing the encoded video compression where differences between an enlarged and decoded image with a down sampled intermediate image layer (e.g. FHD reduced image) is performed to obtain encoding parameters corresponding to the intermediate image layer resolution scale, leading to an encoded video compression scheme with improved flexibility in the resolution scalability of the encoded bitstream.
Regarding claim 5, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Niikura and Abbas disclose the video optimization processing system of claim 1, wherein a resolution of the third video is lower than a resolution of the second video (see Niikura [0044], where the FHD reduced image is reduced by ½ in size to genera the lower resolution HD image; see Abbas [0174]-[0176], where the LF input is obtained by down sampling to obtain the LF input image, where the LF input image has lower resolution than the IF input image).
Regarding claim 6, please see the above rejection of claim 5. Niikura and Abbas disclose the video optimization processing system of claim 5, wherein a resolution of the second video and a resolution of the fourth video are the same (see Niikura Fig. 6 and [0044], where the image transmitting apparatus receives a high-resolution input image and reduces the size of the input image to generate a full high definition (FHD) reduced image; and see Niikura [0045], where the encoded data is decoded and enlarged to generate the restored image and the restored image is reduced to the FHD size).
Regarding claim 7, Niikura discloses a video optimization processing method, comprising:
compressing a first video, by a server (see Niikura Fig. 1 [0030], image transmitting apparatus), to generate a second video and a third video (see Niikura Fig. 6 and [0044], where the image transmitting apparatus receives a high-resolution input image and reduces the size of the input image to generate a full high definition (FHD) reduced image and a further reduced high definition (HD) image and encodes the HD image), so as to generate a difference information (see Niikura Fig. 6 and [0044], where the encoded HD image is decoded and image enlargement process is performed on the decoded image, and a difference is obtained between the image data after enlargement with the input image), and calculating, according to the difference information, at least one image enhancement algorithm and at least one enhancement parameter (see Niikura Fig. 6 [0044] where the difference is used to determine an enlargement parameter for the image enlarging process); and
executing, by a user device (see Niikura Fig. 1 [0030], image receiving apparatus), a video playing software (see Niikura [0034], where the image receiving apparatus is able to output the restored image to a monitor to display the restored image; see also Niikura [0102]-[0103], where the disclosure can be achieved by a processor executing a computer program), and receiving the third video, the at least one image enhancement algorithm, and the at least one enhancement parameter from the server (see Niikura [0044]-[0045], where the image receiving apparatus receives the encoded data and parameter and decodes the encoded image data according to the encoding method and performs the image enlargement processing using the parameter), wherein the video playing software, according to the at least one image enhancement algorithm and the at least one enhancement parameter, restores the third video to generate a fourth video, thereby playing the fourth video (see Niikura [0045], where the encoded data is decoded and enlarged to generate the restored image and the restored image is reduced to the FHD size).
Niikura does not explicitly disclose that the server compares the third video and the second video to generate a difference information.
Abbas teaches in a related and pertinent apparatus and method for scalable, multi-resolution approach to digital video data compression (see Abbas Abstract), where an input image may be down sampled to obtain an intermediate fidelity (IF) input image and further down sampled and encoded to obtain a low fidelity (LF) output bitstream (see Abbas Fig. 6 and [0173]-[0176]), the encoded LF output bitstream is decoded and up sampled to obtain an IF reconstructed output (see Abbas [0176]), where an IF difference output is obtained between an intermediate layer input and an IF reconstructed output to be encoded to obtain an intermediate fidelity output bitstream (see Abbas Fig. 6 [0173]-[0178]), and that the system for encoding may be a server (see Abbas [0221]) and remote devices for decoding and displaying the video may be a user interface device (see Abbas [0224]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Abbas’s teachings of implementing multi-layer scalable encoding to the teachings of Niikura such that encoding parameters are determined based on differences between an enlarged and decoded image with a down sampled intermediate image layer (e.g. FHD reduced image).
This modification is rationalized as an application of a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In this instance, Niikura teaches a base system for transmitting encoded image data where high resolution input video image is reduced to form a FHD and encoded HD reduced images, and parameters are determined from difference between a decoded and enlarged HD image, the parameter and encoded HD reduced image is transmitted to a receiving apparatus to be restored and generate a FHD image to be displayed.
Abbas teaches a known technique in implementing a scalable, multi-resolution video compression where the difference output is obtained between an intermediate layer input and an IF reconstructed output to be encoded to obtain an intermediate fidelity output bitstream.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying Abbas’s known technique to Niikura’s teachings would have predictably yielded performing the encoded video compression where differences between an enlarged and decoded image with a down sampled intermediate image layer (e.g. FHD reduced image) is performed to obtain encoding parameters corresponding to the intermediate image layer resolution scale, leading to an encoded video compression scheme with improved flexibility in the resolution scalability of the encoded bitstream.
Regarding claim 11, see above rejection for claim 7. It is a method claim reciting similar subject matter as claim 5. Please see above claim 5 for detailed claim analysis as the limitations of claim 11 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, see above rejection for claim 7. It is a method claim reciting similar subject matter as claim 6. Please see above claim 6 for detailed claim analysis as the limitations of claim 12 are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niikura and Abbas as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Raveendran (US 2005/0276505).
Regarding claim 2, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Niikura and Abbas discloses the video optimization processing system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to enhance the third video according to the at least one image enhancement algorithm and the at least one enhancement parameter (see Niikura [0044]-[0045], where the image receiving apparatus receives the encoded data and parameter and decodes the encoded image data according to the encoding method and performs the image enlargement processing using the parameter).
While Abbas suggests the use of de-blocking filters upon the decoded data according to particular implemented encoding schemes (see Abbas [0150] and [0154]); Niikura and Abbas do not explicitly disclose execute a smoothing process to the third video which is enhanced so as to generate an image compensation information.
Raveendran teaches in a related and pertinent method and apparatus for deblocking and edge enhancement of block based digital data (see Raveendran Abstract), where deblocking filter designs includes performing high pass filtering upon reconstructed images to emphasize block edge areas and subsequently perform low pass filtering upon the block edge areas for smoothing the block edges (see Raveendran [0025]-[0029]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Raveendran’s teachings of implementing deblocking filtering by performing low-pass filtering of block edges to the teachings of Niikura and Abbas such that a deblocking filter is implemented upon decoded images, which performs low-pass filtering upon the decoded images.
This modification is rationalized as an application of a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In this instance, Niikura and Abbas teach a base system for transmitting encoded image data where high resolution input video image is reduced to form a FHD and encoded HD reduced images, and parameters are determined from difference between a decoded and enlarged HD image, the parameter and encoded HD reduced image is transmitted to a receiving apparatus to be restored and generate a FHD image to be displayed, and further suggests the use of de-blocking filters upon decoded images.
Raveendran teaches a known technique of implementing deblocking filters where high pass filtering is performed upon reconstructed images to emphasize block edge areas and subsequently perform low pass filtering upon the block edge areas for smoothing the block edges.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying Raveendran’s known technique to Niikura and Abbas’s teachings would have predictably yielded performing deblocking filtering upon the decoded images involving low-pass filtering the decoded images, leading to an improved video compression scheme with improved decoded images.
Regarding claim 3, please see the above rejection of claim 2. Niikura, Abbas, and Raveendran disclose the video optimization processing system of claim 2, wherein the video playing software further restores the third video according to the image compensation information, the at least one image enhancement algorithm, and the at least one enhancement parameter so as to generate the fourth video (see Niikura [0044]-[0045], where the image receiving apparatus receives the encoded data and parameter and decodes the encoded image data according to the encoding method and performs the image enlargement processing using the parameter to generate the restored image and the restored image is reduced to the FHD size).
Regarding claim 4, please see the above rejection of claim 3. Niikura, Abbas, and Raveendran disclose the video optimization processing system of claim 3, wherein the server executes a high pass filter process to the third video which is enhanced, and then executes a smoothing process to the third video which is enhanced so as to generate the image compensation information (see Abbas [0150] and [0154], where de-blocking filters are suggested to be used upon the decoded data; see Raveendran [0025]-[0029], where deblocking filter designs includes performing high pass filtering upon reconstructed images to emphasize block edge areas and subsequently perform low pass filtering upon the block edge areas for smoothing the block edges).
Regarding claim 8, see above rejection for claim 7. It is a method claim reciting similar subject matter as claim 2. Please see above claim 2 for detailed claim analysis as the limitations of claim 8 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, see above rejection for claim 8. It is a method claim reciting similar subject matter as claim 3. Please see above claim 3 for detailed claim analysis as the limitations of claim 9 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, see above rejection for claim 9. It is a method claim reciting similar subject matter as claim 4. Please see above claim 4 for detailed claim analysis as the limitations of claim 10 are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WING HO CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3814. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, VINCENT RUDOLPH can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/TIMOTHY CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights