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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to claim objections towards claims 1 and 14 have been fully considered and is withdrawn.
Applicant’s response to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) towards claim 12 has been fully considered and is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hui Moskvitin teaches,
A hardware-based video encoder (¶18 and fig. 1, apparatus 100 depicted in fig. 1 including “processor 102” being a plurality of processors) comprising:
a memory configured to store statistics of video data; (¶19 and fig. 1, processor 102 with “pixel divider 112” depicted in fig. 1 that generates “a perimeter pixel 124 and a center pixel 126 from the pixel information 122”)
statistics computing circuitry (¶19 and fig. 1, processor 102 with “comparator 114” depicted in fig. 1) comprising a plurality of counting blocks, (¶19,28, and fig. 1-3, “perimeter pixel 124” and “center pixel 126” depicted in fig. 1 and 3) wherein each counting block of the plurality of counting blocks (¶19,28, and fig. 1-3, comparator 114 of processor 102 receiving “perimeter pixel 124” and “center pixel 126” from pixel divider 112 as depicted in fig. 1 and 3) comprises comparator circuitry (¶28, and fig. 3, comparator 114 including “a first comparator 150, a second comparator 152, and an incrementor 154” that receive “the perimeter pixel 126 and the center pixel 124” depicted in fig. 3) configured to:
compare a value of each input pixel of a set of input pixel values to a set value; (¶28-29 and fig. 3, “first comparator 150 generates the compare pixel value 130” which is the absolute value difference “between the perimeter pixel 126 and the center pixel 124”)
accumulator circuitry (¶19-24 and fig. 1, processor 102 with “accumulator 116” depicted in fig. 1) configured to update the statistics of the video based on the number of comparisons (¶19-24 and fig. 3, accumulator 116 accumulates by continually “add or update the newly received compare pixel value 130 with a previously-stored value within the accumulator 116”)
control circuitry (¶30-31,24-26, and fig. 1-3, “output pixel generator 120”) configured to control a video encoding process (¶30-31,24-26, and fig. 1-3, “output pixel generator 120” of processor 102 depicted in fig. 1 “generates the output pixel value 138”) based on the updated statistics. (¶30-31,24-26, and fig. 1-3, output pixel generator 120 generates the output pixel value 138 output to frame buffer 106 where “compressed frame 140 is provided to the compression engine such that the frame 140 may be compressed”)
But does not explicitly teach,
to determine a number of comparisons that are true, wherein a comparison that is true corresponds to a value of an input pixel of the set of input pixel values being equal to the set value;
the number of comparisons are true for each counting block of the plurality of counting blocks;
However, Kakutani teaches additionally,
compare a value of each input pixel (¶102,104-105, “corresponding referenced pixel is judged to be a valid pixel” at “(step 150)”) to determine a number of comparisons that are true, (¶105,145, and fig. 10, “number of pixels judged to be the valid pixel among the referenced pixels within the range is counted” by the valid pixel counter 120 at “(step S170)” depicted in fig. 10) wherein a comparison that is true (¶104-105, “judgment whether the referenced pixel is a valid pixel”) corresponds to a value of an input pixel of the set of input pixel values being equal to the set value; (¶102,104-105, “pixel level regarding to the referenced pixel” is determined to be valid in a case where “difference value is less than or equal to the first threshold” that are counted as “a number of pixels judged to be valid pixel among the referenced pixels”)
update the statistics of the video data (¶145-146 and fig. 10, “calculate a correction value” at (step S200) depicted in fig. 10) based on the number of comparisons are true (¶145-146 and fig. 10, calculate a correction value based on “a sum of the difference value of each valid pixel” as counted at (step S170) which the “number of the valid pixels counted is more than or equal to the second threshold(step S180:Yes)”) for each counting block of the plurality of counting blocks; (¶105, judgement regarding “all of the referenced pixels within the range”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani which counts the number of valid pixels. This allows for more appropriate reference pixels which can improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Moskvitin teaches additionally,
comparator circuitry (¶21-24 and fig. 1, “comparator 114” depicted in fig. 1) of each counting block (¶21-24 and fig. 1, “perimeter pixel 124” depicted in fig. 1) of the plurality of counting blocks (¶21-24 and fig. 2, “perimeter pixel 124” that surround center pixel 126 as depicted in fig. 2) is configured to compare the value of each input pixel of the set of input pixels to a different set value. (¶21-24 and fig. 2, comparator 114 compares “all of the perimeter pixels 124” with the value of the center pixel 126 and determines if the “difference between the center pixel 126 and perimeter pixel 124 is greater than or less than the threshold value 128”)
Regarding claim 14, it is the method claim of encoder claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the limitations of claim 14.
Claim(s) 3,16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of Bellows; Peter R. et al. (US 10547849 B1)
Regarding claim 3, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 3,
However, Bellows teaches additionally,
memory (5:19-25, “SRAM” corresponding to static random-access “memory cells”) comprises a flop array. (5:19-25, memory cells of the “memory array incorporate flip-flop circuits”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the memory of Bellows which discloses static random-access memory that incorporates flip-flop circuitry. This provides the use of a type of memory that holds data while power is supplied to the memory.
Regarding claim 16, dependent on claim 14, is the method claim of apparatus claim 3, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 3 to teach the limitations of claim 16.
Claim(s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of Hui; Yau Wei Lucas et al. (US 7623576 B1)
Regarding claim 4, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Moskvitin teaches additionally,
counting block of the plurality of counting blocks (¶19,28, and fig. 1-3, comparator 114 of processor 102 receiving “perimeter pixel 124” and “center pixel 126” from pixel divider 112 as depicted in fig. 1 and 3)
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 4,
However, Hui teaches additionally,
counting block (4:24-38 and fig. 3, “field difference unit 106” depicted in fig. 3) further comprises summing logic (4:24-38 and fig. 3, field difference unit 106 illustrated as including “accumulator 305” depicted in fig. 3) configured to sum outputs of the comparator circuitry. (4:24-38 and fig. 3, “unattenuated pixel difference is accumulated in accumulator 305” as chosen by “comparator 301” depicted in fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the field difference unit of Hui which includes an accumulator in the difference unit. This allows for using a process that reduces inaccuracies in the calculation of field differences.
Claim(s) 5,9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of SASAKI; Eiichi (US 20200336754 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 5,
However, Sasaki teaches additionally,
statistics of the video data (¶149 and fig. 12, “pixel count unit” disclosed in fig. 12) comprises histogram statistics. (¶149 and fig. 12, “pixel count unit” disclosed in fig. 12)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the pixel classification of Sasaki generated as a histogram. This allows for collection of values that can be used to improve subjective image quality when distortion is present.
Regarding claim 9, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 9,
However, Sasaki teaches additionally,
video data has a bit-depth of BD, (¶161, “bit depth of possible pixel values” set to “BD in the picture 710”) and the plurality of counting blocks includes 2BD counting blocks.(¶161, “pixel count unit 1011 may perform partitioning” such that “number of gray-scale levels of each class is 2(BD−7)” where “BD is an integer greater than or equal to 8” associated with bit depth of possible pixel values in the picture 710)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the pixel count partitioning a number of levels taught by Sasaki corresponding to a defined bit depth. This allows for enhancing the effects that would improve color shifting.
Claim(s) 6,15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of LIM; Sung Chang et al. (US 20210120261 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 6,
However, Lim teaches additionally,
statistics of the video data (¶61, “sample” as a “basic unit constituting a block”) comprises a count of occurrences of each value between 0 and 2BD-1, (¶61, “sample” as a basic unit constituting a block expressed as a “value from 0 to 2Bd-1” according to a bit depth (Bd)) wherein BD represents a bit depth of the video data. (¶61, block expressed as a value from 0 to 2Bd-1 “according to a bit depth (Bd)”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the sample of Lim which expresses a block with values associated with a bit depth. This allows for performing operations which save hardware processing by considering bit depth reduction.
Regarding claim 15, dependent on claim 14, it is the method claim similar to the apparatus claims 2 and 6, which are both dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejections of claims 2 and 6 to teach the limitations of claim 15.
Claim(s) 7-8,18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of Liao; Yiting et al. (US 20160381368 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 7,
However, Liao teaches additionally,
perform bit-rate optimization when encoding the video data (¶19, “optimize aspects of the coding policy such as the encoding bit rate”) based on the updated statistics. (¶19, “sensor information 22e may therefore be correlated with the buffer depth information 22b and other unfiltered feedback information 22” to further optimize aspects of the coding policy such as the encoding bit rate)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the adjustment of encoding bit rate of Liao which performs optimization of encoding bit rate. This allows for ensuring display content arriving within latency constraints.
Regarding claim 8, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 8,
However, Liao teaches additionally,
perform frame-rate control (¶24, “constant frame rate”) based on the updated statistics when encoding the video data. (¶24, “choose coding modes and QP values based on the temporal characteristics of the video to optimize the coding efficiency with the goal of smoothness and a constant frame rate”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the rate control mechanism of Liao which optimizes coding efficiency for a constant frame rate. This allows for coding efficiency and improvements to perceptual quality.
Regarding claim 18, dependent on claim 14, it is the method claim similar to the apparatus claims 7 and 8, which are both dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejections of claims 7 and 8 to teach the limitations of claim 18.
Claim(s) 10-11,19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of Kol; Rakefet et al. (US 20180182127 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 10,
However, Kol teaches additionally,
set of input pixel values (¶46, “pixel values” encoded using a difference value”) comprises residual values. (¶46, difference value based on “prior pixel value and the number of bits used to represent the residual value” based on the content of the pixel value)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the pixel values of Kol encodes the pixels using small residuals between pixel component values. This allows for reduces memory bandwidth requirements.
Regarding claim 11, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 11,
However, Kol teaches additionally,
set of input values (¶10, “pixel values”) comprise full range pixel values. (¶10, pixel values represent “full range of an HDR image that reproduces a “greater dynamic range of luminosity”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the pixel values of Kol which represent the full range of luminosity. This allows for reproducing HDR images with greater dynamic range than with standard imaging techniques.
Regarding claim 19, dependent on claim 14, it is the method claim similar to apparatus claims 10 and 11, which are both dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejections of claim 10 and 11 to teach the limitations of claim 19.
Claim(s) 13,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of Netter; Florian et al. (US 20240171762 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Moskvitin with Kakutani teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 13,
However, Netter teaches additionally,
An autonomous driving system comprising the hardware-based video encoder of claim 1. (¶64, “subject matter are directed to systems and methods for video encoding for autonomous vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Moskvitin with the difference calculation of Kakutani with the encoding Netter for an autonomous vehicle. This allows for different quality levels in different video stream to be communicated for different applications related to an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, dependent on claim 14, is the method claim of apparatus claim 13, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 13 to teach the limitations of claim 20.
Claim(s) 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskvitin, Konstantin E. (US 20050169538 A1) in view of Kakutani; Koichiro (US 20110229051 A1) in view of SASAKI; Eiichi (US 20200336754 A1) in view of LIM; Sung Chang et al. (US 20210120261 A1)
Regarding claim 17, dependent on claim 14, it is the method claim similar to the apparatus claims 5 and 6, which are both dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejections of claims 5 and 6 to teach the limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM 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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights