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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 recites “a computer-readable recording medium” which is left open-ended in the specifications [as seen in ¶0134 of the publication] which can lead to transitory subject matter. However, if along with what the claim already states, the “computer-readable recording medium” was stored as a non-transitory computer-readable medium the claim would be reconsidered as statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2004/0172478).
In regards to claim 1, Jacobs teaches a method, performed by an electronic device, for adaptively encoding a video, the method comprising:
identifying a network bandwidth (See ¶0008);
determining whether a scene transition occurs in a first frame (See ¶0030-0031), based a plurality of partial frames corresponding to the first frame (See ¶0030 wherein partial frames may be taught as blocks which correspond to the motion vector and block matching techniques being described for identifying scene changes) and at least one second frame reproduced before the first frame (See ¶0030-0031 in view of ¶0023 and FIG. 2);
selecting a preprocessing specification corresponding to the first frame, based on the network bandwidth and a result of the determining (Given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant’s specification, pre-processing is taught as changes in resolution and/or frame rate based on available network bandwidth as described in ¶0075 of the instant application’s publication, see ¶0023, 0035-0038 of Jacobs wherein the bit-rates may be changed based on available bandwidth, wherein it is noted that the system may pre-analyze the video and adjust accordingly when bandwidth indeed changes);
preprocessing the first frame based on the preprocessing specification (See ¶0023, 0035-0038 as described above wherein the system may, for example, switch from one stream [at one bit-rate] to another stream [another bit-rate] as bandwidth fluctuates; it is noted by the examiner that “preprocessing” is not defined in the claim language and may be interpreted as part of various interactions by an encoding system upon portions of a video stream); and
encoding the first frame (See FIG. 1 and 6 in view of at least ¶0003).
In regards to claim 2, Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting of the preprocessing specification comprises:
selecting a first preprocessing specification based on the result of the determining indicating that the scene transition occurs in the first frame (See ¶0030-0031 wherein, for example, an extra condition is imposed upon a scene change such as by the adding or dropping of a layer); and
selecting a second preprocessing specification based on the result of the determining indicating that the scene transition does not occur in the first frame (See ¶0036 wherein if the system is aware that all of the data has been received by the receiver, it may continue sending data of the stream at the bitrate it has been sending [thus no layer changes]).
In regards to claim 3, Jacobs teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the selecting of the preprocessing specification further comprises obtaining a predicted image quality of the first frame after the encoding based on the second preprocessing specification being selected (See ¶0036), and
wherein the first preprocessing specification corresponds to the network bandwidth (See ¶0030-0031) and the second preprocessing specification corresponds to the predicted image quality (See ¶0036).
In regards to claim 4, Jacobs teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the obtaining of the predicted image quality comprises:
obtaining frame information comprising bandwidth information and image quality information corresponding to the at least one second frame (See ¶0002-0004); and
obtaining the predicted image quality based on the frame information, wherein the first frame and the at least one second frame are included in a same scene (See ¶0002-0004 wherein quality may be adjusted according to available bandwidth, even if there is currently no scene change taken into consideration).
In regards to claim 6, Jacobs teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising generating frame information comprising bandwidth information and image quality information corresponding to the encoded first frame, wherein the frame information is used for preprocessing of a frame reproduced after the first frame (See ¶0036-0038 in view of FIG. 2 wherein quality may be maintained for frames after a frame that has been considered [possibly a scene change frame] with regards to a specific quality and available bandwidth being sufficient upon communication by the receiver).
In regards to claim 7, Jacobs teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the selecting of the preprocessing specification comprises maintaining the preprocessing specification of the first frame based on determining that a preprocessing specification change history exists for the at least one second frame within a certain interval from the first frame (See ¶0037-0038 in view of FIG. 2 with regards to preprocessing of scene changes with relation to quality changes ahead of time).
In regards to claim 8, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Jacobs wherein the communication interface is taught as seen in ¶0024-0026 in view of FIG. 3, 5 and 6, and wherein the processor and memory are taught as seen in ¶0021-0022 in view of FIG. 1, 3 and 6 with regards to servers, computers and PCs, understood to have memory in order to perform functions and programs.
In regards to claim 9-11, 13 and 14, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claims 2-4, 6 and 7, respectively, by Jacobs.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2004/0172478) in view of Kwon et al. (“Kwon”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2013/0301700).
In regards to claim 5, Jacobs fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein according to the second preprocessing specification, a resolution of the first frame is reduced based on the predicted image quality being less than a first threshold value, and increased based on the predicted image quality being greater than or equal to a second threshold value.
In a similar endeavor Kwon teaches wherein according to the second preprocessing specification, a resolution of the first frame is reduced based on the predicted image quality being less than a first threshold value (See ¶0039 and 0044-0046 wherein a rate controller may be used to ensure that the number of generated bits does not exceed a threshold [thus being less than a threshold], and thus a decimation process may be executed in order to ensure that said threshold is not exceeded), and increased based on the predicted image quality being greater than or equal to a second threshold value.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kwon into Jacobs because it allows for overcoming bitrate overshoot as described in ¶0006, wherein the temporary bitrate exceeds channel bandwidth, thus allowing for an adjustable codec system that may overcome a bitrate overshoot problem as further specified in ¶0007.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 5 by Jacobs in view of Kwon.
In regards to claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Jacobs and Kwon, wherein the computer-readable medium may be taught as seen in ¶0111 of Kwon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483