DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/101,968 titled “Faster Hybrid Three Pass Encoding for Video Streaming,” filed Jan. 26, 2023, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/04/2024 and 08/19/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “The method of claim 11” cited in claim 13 is unclear and vague since claim 11 is the system claim. It is suggested to change it to ---- The system of claim 11 -----.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin Sole (US 11,128,869 B1; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021) (hereinafter Sole).
Regarding claim 1, Sole discloses a method for fast hybrid per-title encoding (e.g., see column 1 lines 5-7: encoding of video titles), comprising:
performing a probe encoding on a plurality of representations of a video input in a constant quality mode using a low complex encoder (e.g., see abstract, column 2 lines 47-64: probe encoding; Figs. 2-3, column 6 lines 14-26, lines 61-66: probe encoding);
generating a bitrate table using a plurality of probe results from the probe encoding, the probe results comprising a plurality of output bitrates (e.g. see column 1 lines 47-64, column 4 line 37-40: bitrate table; Fig. 2, step 202, column 6 lines 14-60: bitrate table);
computing a bitrate ladder, by a per-title algorithm, using the bitrate table, the bitrate ladder comprising bitrate and resolution pairs (e.g. see abstract, column 1 lines 47-64, column 4 line 37-40: bitrate ladder; Fig. 2, step 202, column 6 lines 14-60: bitrate ladder); and
encoding the video input using the bitrate ladder and a different encoder (e.g., see Fig. 2, step 204, column 6 lines 14-60: content encoding using bitrate ladder).
Regarding claim 2, Sole discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of output bitrates comprises a set of median bitrates (e.g., see Fig. 3, step 308, column 8 lines 37-47: compute mean bitrate; Fig. 4, lines 63-67: mean bitrates).
Regarding claim 3, Sole discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the low complex encoder comprises one of an H264 codec and a VP9 codec (e.g., see column 3 lines 40-48, column 5 lines 18-25: H.264, VP9).
Regarding claim 4, Sole discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the different encoder comprises a high-performing codec (e.g., see column 3 lines 40-48, column 5 lines 18-25: high-performing codec such as H.265/HEVC).
Regarding claim 5, Sole discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising mapping the bitrate table to an expected set of probe encoder results using a probe encode adaptation (e.g., see abstract, column 2 lines 47-64: mapping the bitrate table and probe encoding) for low complex codecs (e.g., see column 3 lines 40-48, column 5 lines 18-25: low complex codecs such as H.264, VP9).
Regarding claim 6, Sole discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding the video input results in an output of one or two renditions of the video input (e.g., see column 2 lines 2-10: renditions).
Regarding claim 7, Sole discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, prior to performing the probe encoding, that the video input exceeds a threshold length; trimming the video input into trimmings of a given trimmed length; and combining a given number of trimmings into a shortened video input, wherein the probe encoding is performed on the shortened video input instead of the video input in full, and wherein the shortened video input is shorter in length than the video input (e.g., see column 7 line 31 to column 8 line 22: length of input video and sample time; also see column 9 lines 31-52).
Regarding claim 8, Sole discloses the method of claim 7, wherein each of the given number of trimmings are less than one minute in length e.g., see column 7 line 31 to column 8 line 22: length of input video and sample time less than 1 minute; also see column 9 lines 31-52).
Regarding claim 9, Sole discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the shortened video input is less than five minutes in length e.g., see column 7 line 31 to column 8 line 22: length of input video and sample time less than 5 minutes; also see column 9 lines 31-52).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is a system claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the system performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, encoding, a memory, and processor (see Fig. 1, column 5 line 3 to column 6 line13; column 11 lines 54-65).
Regarding claim 11, it contains the limitations of claims 7 and 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 12, it contains the limitations of claims 3 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 13, it contains the limitations of claims 4 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486