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
Foreign Priority is acknowledged from Chinese application CN202311694667.1 with a filing date of 12/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 12/26/2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 4-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claims recite obtaining frame cadence information between videos, frame cadence represents a correspondence between the videos, the target video is transcoded from the source video, and obtaining a processing result of the target video based on the cadence information.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 1, the limitations of "and obtaining, based on the frame cadence information, a target processing result of the target transcoded video", as drafted only involves mental processes or mathematical calculations, such as the obtaining of a processing result of the video. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional step "obtaining frame cadence information between a source video and a target transcoded video, wherein the frame cadence information represents a video frame correspondence between the source video and the target transcoded video, and the target transcoded video comprises a video obtained by transcoding the source video”, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity. The other additional recited element in certain other claims is just a processor and a computer-readable storage medium, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claims 9 and 17.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the obtaining of similarities between the frames in the videos to obtain a frame quality evaluation of each frame as recited in Claim 4 or comparing frames in the videos to obtain noise in the target video for denoising as recited in Claim 6 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps or steps that could be completed within the human mind and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 20140380376 A1) in view of Winkler (US 20110169963 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmidt teaches "A video processing method, comprising: obtaining frame cadence information between a source video and a target transcoded video"; (Schmidt, Paras. 32 and 46-49, teaches a transcoder that transcodes the CPT stream as received from the received into the desired streaming format for presentation such as streams with different encoding paradigms or parameters wherein the frame rate cadence is depicted during transcoding, i.e., obtain frame cadence information between the source video and a target transcoded video);
"wherein the frame cadence information represents a video frame correspondence between the source video and the target transcoded video"; (Schmidt, Paras. 46-49, teaches some incoming native CPT I-frames do not fall on output frame locations of the transcoded stream resulting in gaps between output I-frames if the transcoder only uses input I-frames as output I-frame locations wherein the transcoder can find the next closest P-frame that aligns with the transcoded output Group-of-Pictures cadence and convert it to the I-frame, i.e., the frame cadence information represents this video frame correspondence or alignment between the source video and the target transcoded video);
"and the target transcoded video comprises a video obtained by transcoding the source video"; (Schmidt, Paras. 32 and 43, teaches a transcoder that transcodes the CPT stream as received from the received into the desired streaming format for presentation such as streams with different encoding paradigms or parameters, i.e., target transcoded video comprises video obtained by transcoding source video).
However, Schmidt does not explicitly teach "and obtaining, based on the frame cadence information, a target processing result of the target transcoded video”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Winkler teaches "and obtaining, based on the frame cadence information, a target processing result of the target transcoded video"; (Winkler, Paras. 8-10 and 17, teaches an alignment module for temporally aligning a test video stream and a reference video stream and a quality evaluation module for comparing frames from the test and reference video streams after they have been aligned and generating a quality result based on a comparison between the two videos wherein video A is the reference video and video B is directly derived from video A through encoding or similar types of processing, i.e., obtaining a target processing result of the target video being the quality result based on the frame cadence information being the alignment of the videos).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt wherein the target video is transcoded and the cadence is the alignment correspondence between the videos by including the obtaining of a processing result of the target video based on alignment taught by Winkler. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it correctly measures quality (Winkler, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to correctly measure video quality).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler teaches "The method according to claim 1, further comprising: transcoding the source video to obtain an intermediate transcoded video, and obtaining first frame cadence information between the source video and the intermediate transcoded video"; (Schmidt, Paras. 32 and 46-47, teaches transcoding a 1080i60 native CPT stream into a 740p30 stream in which the decimation results to a p30 frame rate cadence during transcoding wherein some incoming native frames do not fall on output frame locations of the transcoded stream, i.e., transcoding source video to obtain an intermediate transcoded video with cadence information between the videos);
"transcoding the intermediate transcoded video to obtain the target transcoded video, and obtaining second frame cadence information between the intermediate transcoded video and the target transcoded video"; (Schmidt, Paras. 32, 43, and 49, teaches transcoding the CPT stream into a 720p60 or 720p30 format then into the HLS chunks in which the transcoder can find the next closest P-frame that aligns with the transcoded output GOP cadence for conversion to the I-frame, i.e., transcoding the intermediate video to obtain target transcoded video and obtaining second cadence information between the intermediate and target video);
"and obtaining, based on the first frame cadence information and the second frame cadence information, the frame cadence information between the source video and the target transcoded video"; (Schmidt, Paras. 32, 43, and 49, teaches transcoding the CPT stream into a 720p60 or 720p30 format then into the HLS chunks wherein generating the HLS chunks comprises I-frames that temporally match the I-frames in the index file or generating chunks of a constant temporal length regardless of the temporal location of the I-frames within the CPT stream wherein HLS chunks match or nearly match the I-frames of the native CPT stream, i.e., frame cadence information between the videos is based on the intervening cadence relationships for final alignment).
Claim 9 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt and Winkler references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt and Winkler references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt and Winkler references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt and Winkler references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt and Winkler references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt and Winkler references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 76).
Claim 18 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt and Winkler references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt and Winkler references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 76).
Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis et al. (US 20190379895 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler does not explicitly teach "The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a target processing result of the target transcoded video comprises: comparing, based on the frame cadence information, video frames in the target transcoded video with corresponding video frames in the source video respectively, so as to obtain a video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video; and obtaining, based on the video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame, the video quality evaluation result of the target transcoded video”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Katsavounidis teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a target processing result of the target transcoded video comprises: comparing, based on the frame cadence information, video frames in the target transcoded video with corresponding video frames in the source video respectively, so as to obtain a video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video"; (Katsavounidis, Paras. 25 and 49, teaches video multimethod assessment fusion VMAF scores which are computed for each frame of encoded video content based on features associated with image-based quality metrics and temporal features wherein the values for the features are computed based on the encoded video content and the source video content from which the encoded video content was derived, i.e., obtain a video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target video being the VMAF score for each frame by comparing video frames in the target video with the source video based on cadence information being the feature values comprising temporal and spatial features and the values for features being computed based on the encoded video and the source video);
"and obtaining, based on the video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame, the video quality evaluation result of the target transcoded video"; (Katsavounidis, Paras. 49-51, teaches aggregating per-frame VMAF values for a sequence of frames, i.e., obtaining the video quality evaluation result of the target video based on quality result of each video frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt and Winkler wherein the target video is a transcoded video and the processing result of quality is based on frame cadence information being the alignment between videos by including the comparing of the frames to obtain a frame quality result and a video quality result taught by Katsavounidis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it increases accuracy of performance (Katsavounidis, Para. 9, teaches the motivation of combination to be to increase accuracy of predicted performance).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis teaches "The method according to claim 3, wherein the obtaining a video quality evaluation result of the target transcoded video comprises: accumulating the video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video to obtain the video quality evaluation result of the target transcoded video"; (Katsavounidis, Paras. 49-51, teaches VMAF scores which are computed for each frame of encoded video content based on features and aggregating per-frame VMAF values for a sequence of frames, i.e., accumulating the frame quality of each video frame to obtain the video evaluation result of the target video).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 5. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis.
Claim 11 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claim 13 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claim 19 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 76).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Winkler, Katsavounidis, and Liu et al. (US 20240212118 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis does not explicitly teach "The method according to claim 3, wherein the comparing video frames in the target transcoded video with corresponding video frames in the source video respectively, so as to obtain a video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video, comprises: obtaining similarities between the video frames in the target transcoded video and the corresponding video frames in the source video respectively; and obtaining, based on the similarities, the video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Liu teaches "The method according to claim 3, wherein the comparing video frames in the target transcoded video with corresponding video frames in the source video respectively, so as to obtain a video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video, comprises: obtaining similarities between the video frames in the target transcoded video and the corresponding video frames in the source video respectively"; (Liu, Paras. 16, 47-49, and 60, teaches the video quality process may compare frames of the source video and the degraded video to determine a score which quantifies the quality in which the quality may be determined based on a video quality measurement such as structural similarity index measure or feature similarity indexing which compares the structural and feature similarity measures between the frame of the degraded video and the frame of the source video and wherein each similarity metric analysis process may output an index value indicating a measure of similarity between the two frames, i.e., obtain similarities between the frames of the target video and source video respectively);
"and obtaining, based on the similarities, the video frame quality evaluation result of each video frame in the target transcoded video"; (Liu, Paras. 16, 47-49, and 60 and Claim 17, teaches the video quality process may compare frames of the source video and the degraded video to determine a score which quantifies the quality in which the quality may be determined based on a video quality measurement such as structural similarity index measure or feature similarity indexing which compares the structural and feature similarity measures between the frames wherein generating the score may comprise comparing the frames of the two videos and outputting a plurality of frame level scores and outputting a video level score based on the frame level scores, i.e., obtain frame quality evaluation of each frame in the video based on similarities).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt in view of Winkler and Katsavounidis wherein the videos are a target transcoded video and a source video by including the obtaining of similarities between frames and obtaining a frame quality result taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the video quality process (Liu, Para. 36, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the video quality process).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 12 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler, Katsavounidis, and Liu references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler, Katsavounidis, and Liu references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler, Katsavounidis, and Liu references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler, Katsavounidis, and Liu references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 76).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Winkler and Kennett et al. (US 20200389672 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler does not explicitly teach "The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a target processing result of the target transcoded video comprises: comparing, based on the frame cadence information, video frames in the target transcoded video with video frames in the source video, so as to obtain noise in the target transcoded video; and performing denoising processing on the noise in the target transcoded video to obtain a denoised target transcoded video”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kennett teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a target processing result of the target transcoded video comprises: comparing, based on the frame cadence information, video frames in the target transcoded video with video frames in the source video, so as to obtain noise in the target transcoded video"; (Kennett, Paras. 31-32 and 35, teaches providing pairs of images including a first plurality of original images prior to compression and a second plurality of digital images after being compressed and decompressed to a trained denoising system to approximate how a digital image having a variety of different compression artifacts would appear prior to introducing the compression artifacts via the compression and decompression processes wherein the artifacts include noise, i.e., comparing video frames of a target video with the source video to obtain noise in the target video);
"and performing denoising processing on the noise in the target transcoded video to obtain a denoised target transcoded video"; (Kennett, Paras. 34-35, teaches providing the decompressed digital video content to a denoising model trained to remove decompression artifacts included within the decompressed video content, i.e., perform denoising processing on the noise in the target video to obtain a denoised target video).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt and Winkler wherein frames of the videos are compared based on frame cadence information being the correspondence and alignment between frames by including the comparing of video frames to obtain noise in the target video and denoising the obtained noise taught by Kennett. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it selectively enhances the video (Kennett, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to selectively enhance digital video reduce consumption of resource and maintain high visual quality).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Kennett references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Kennett references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Winkler, Parashar (US 12664694 B1), and Gan et al. (US 20250239058 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler does not explicitly teach “The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a target processing result of the target transcoded video comprises: inputting the source video, the target transcoded video and the frame cadence information into a video denoising model, so as to obtain a denoised target transcoded video, wherein a preset model is trained by using training samples to obtain the video denoising model, the training samples comprise a to-be-transcoded video and a transcoded video, and frame cadence information between the to-be-transcoded video and the transcoded video, and video frames in the transcoded video comprise noise annotation information”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Parashar teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a target processing result of the target transcoded video comprises: inputting the source video, the target transcoded video and the frame cadence information into a video denoising model, so as to obtain a denoised target transcoded video"; (Parashar, Col. 4 lines 1-30 and Col. 8 lines 20-56, teaches a neural network can receive as input the original image and the compressed image wherein the network can compare these images and infer data as enhancement data to improve a similarity between the images wherein the input video frame and compressed residual frame are used to generate a set of residual features that can be provided as input to the neural network wherein the machine learning process helps to reduce a presence of artifacts and distortion from a compressed image or video that contribute to perceptual quality, i.e., inputting source video, transcoded video, and frame cadence information to a denoising model to obtain a denoised target video);
"wherein a preset model is trained by using training samples to obtain the video denoising model, the training samples comprise a to-be-transcoded video and a transcoded video, and frame cadence information between the to-be-transcoded video and the transcoded video"; (Parashar, Col. 5 lines 44-60 and Col. 6 lines 37-67, teaches the network can be trained to improve a structural similarity index score between an original image and a compressed image wherein differences between these images can be calculated in feature space, i.e., model is trained using samples comprising the original video and compressed video as well as information between the videos being the compared differences between the images as the cadence information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt and Winkler wherein the target video is a transcoded video and cadence information represents a correspondence between the videos by including the inputting of two videos and their respective correspondence into a trained denoising model taught by Parashar. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it generates enhancement data (Parashar, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to generate enhancement data for the compressed images).
However, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler and Parashar does not explicitly teach "and video frames in the transcoded video comprise noise annotation information".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gan teaches "and video frames in the transcoded video comprise noise annotation information"; (Gan, Claim 1, teaches a plurality of first images with noise labels, frames comprise noise annotation information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt, Winkler, and Parashar wherein frames are transcoded video frames by including the frames comprising noise annotation information taught by Gan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves accuracy of the model (Gan, Para. 66, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the accuracy and robustness of the model).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler, Parashar, and Gan references, presented in rejection of Claim 7, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler, Parashar, and Gan references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Winkler and Laksono et al. (US 20130094834 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler teaches "
"obtaining target video information in the source video"; (Winkler, Paras. 18 and 34, teaches video alignment and calibration between the videos wherein the third step detects luminance and color gains and offsets between the videos, i.e., obtain target video information in the source video);
"and performing target image processing on the target video based on the target video information and the frame cadence information"; (Winkler, Paras. 9, 20, 26 and 34, teaches performing a spatial transformation and a luminance/color adjustment on the video based on the pair of matching frames, i.e., target image processing of the target video based on the information being the spatial information and luminance/color as well as frame cadence due to the matched frames with alignment).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Schmidt and Winkler references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 8.
However, the combination of references of Schmidt in view of Winkler does not explicitly teach "The method according to claim 1, further comprising: decoding the target transcoded video to obtain a decoded target video".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Laksono teaches "The method according to claim 1, further comprising: decoding the target transcoded video to obtain a decoded target video"; (Laksono, Paras. 67-68, teaches metadata and the video signal of the transcoded video content can be extracted by a decoding device to generate a decoded video signal, i.e., decode the transcoded video to obtain a decoded target video).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schmidt and Winkler by including the decoding of a target transcoded video taught by Laksono. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it integrates relevant metadata (Laksono, Para. 36, teaches the motivation of combination to be to integrate relevant metadata to the content being processed).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Laksono references, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schmidt in view of Winkler and Laksono references discloses a processor and a memory (for example, see Schmidt, Paragraph 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights