DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 01/17/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission 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 § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soundararajan (US Pub. 20030072375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soundararajan discloses a computer-implemented method for generating enhanced frames of video data, the method comprising (Soundararajan; Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0027-28]. A video coding computer-implemented method for generating enhanced frames of video data is used.):
decoding a first video frame from video data associated with a media title (Soundararajan; Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0027-28]. A first video frame from video data of MPEG is decoded.);
decoding a first video frame portion from the video data, wherein the first video frame portion has a smaller size than the first video frame (Soundararajan; Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0027-28]. A first video frame including a first video frame portion is decoded from video data, wherein a first video frame portion is smaller in size than a first video frame.);
extracting first position data corresponding to the first video frame portion from a header included in the video data (Soundararajan; Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0027-28]. A first location/position data for a first video frame portion is obtained from a header in video data..); and
combining the first video frame with the first video frame portion based on the first position data to generate a first enhanced video frame (Soundararajan; Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0027-28]. A first video fame portion is combined with a first video frame in accordance with a first location/position data to generate a first enhanced video frame.).
Claim 11 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate enhanced frames of video data by performing the steps of a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories that, when executing the instructions, perform the steps of a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
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 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 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Soundararajan (US Pub. 20030072375 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Soundararajan discloses wherein the first video frame corresponds to a base layer (Soundararajan; Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0027-28]. A first video frame corresponds to a base layer which is at a lowest frame rate compared to an enhanced layer within video data.), but wherein the first video frame corresponds to a base layer that has at least one of a lowest available frame rate or a lowest available resolution associated with the video data.
However, Soundararajan in a second embodiment teaches wherein the first video frame corresponds to a base layer that has at least one of a lowest available frame rate or a lowest available resolution associated with the video data (Soundararajan; Para. [0005-6]. A first video frame corresponds to a base layer having a lowest available frame rate with video data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan in a first embodiment to adapt a coding approach, by incorporating Soundararajan’s teaching in a second embodiment wherein a lowest frame rate or resolution is adapted for a base layer, for the motivation to perform selective coding of different video layers (Soundararajan; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Soundararajan further teaches wherein the first portion corresponds to an enhancement layer that has at least one of a first frame rate or a first resolution associated with the video data (Soundararajan; Para. [0005-6]. A first portion corresponds to an enhancement layer, item 250 of Fig. 2, having a higher first frame rate or higher first resolution.), wherein the first frame rate is greater than or equal to a lowest available frame rate, and the first resolution is greater than or equal to a lowest available resolution (Soundararajan; Para. [0005-6]. The higher frame rate and the higher resolution is greater than or equal to a lowest frame rate and a lowest resolution.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan in a first embodiment to adapt a coding approach, by incorporating Soundararajan’s teaching in a second embodiment wherein a higher frame rate or resolution is adapted for an enhancement layer, for the motivation to perform selective coding of different video layers (Soundararajan; Abstract.).
Claim 12 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate enhanced frames of video data by performing the steps of a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 2-3, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 4-7, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soundararajan (US Pub. 20030072375 A1) in view of Nishino (US Pub. 20110229109 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Soundararajan discloses extracting the first position data from the header information (Soundararajan; Para. [0027]. Location/position information is obtained from a header information.), but extracting the first position data from the header information comprises: determining a row offset for the first portion within the first video frame based on the header information; and determine a column offset for the first portion within the first video frame based on the header information.
However, Nishino teaches extracting the first position data from the header information comprises: determining a row offset for the first portion within the first video frame based on the header information; and determine a column offset for the first portion within the first video frame based on the header information (Nishino; Para. [0038]. Header information includes field of view/position data for obtaining a vertical/row offset within a first video frame and obtaining a horizontal/column offset within a first video frame.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan to adapt a positioning approach, by incorporating Nishino’s teaching wherein a vertical and horizontal offsets are used to position a FOV/video portion, for the motivation to hierarchically encoding video images having different fields of view (Nishino; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 5, Soundararajan discloses combining the first video frame and the first portion (Soundararajan; Para. [0028]. A first video frame a first portion are combined.), but combining the first video frame and the first portion comprises projecting the first portion onto the first video frame using a row offset and a column offset indicated in the first position data.
However, Nishino teaches combining the first video frame and the first portion comprises projecting the first portion onto the first video frame using a row offset and a column offset indicated in the first position data (Nishino; Para. [0038-39]. A firs video frame and a first video portion are combined by projecting a first portion onto a first video frame using vertical and horizontal offset.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan to adapt a positioning approach, by incorporating Nishino’s teaching wherein a vertical and horizontal offsets are used to position a FOV/video portion, for the motivation to hierarchically encoding video images having different fields of view (Nishino; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 6, Soundararajan discloses extracting first dimension data corresponding to the first portion from the header information (Soundararajan; Para. [0027]. First dimension/region data for the first portion is obtained from header information.), but wherein the first video frame is combined with the first portion based further on the first dimension data.
However, Nishino teaches wherein the first video frame is combined with the first portion based further on the first dimension data (Nishino; Para. [0038, 40]. A firs video frame and a first video portion are combined in accordance with a first dimension data of a horizontal size and a vertical size.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan to adapt a positioning approach, by incorporating Nishino’s teaching wherein a vertical and horizontal sizes are used to position a FOV/video portion, for the motivation to hierarchically encoding video images having different fields of view (Nishino; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 7, modified Soundararajan further teaches determining a vertical dimension for the first portion within the first video frame based on first dimension data included in the header information (Nishino; Para. [0038, 40]. A vertical size is obtained for a first portion, see Fig. 4, within a first frame in accordance with a firs dimension data in a header information.);
determining a horizontal dimension for the first portion within the first video frame based on the first dimension data (Nishino; Para. [0038, 40]. A horizontal size is obtained for a first portion, see Fig. 4, within a first frame in accordance with a firs dimension data in a header information.); and
scaling the first portion according to the vertical dimension and the horizontal dimension to include in the enhancement layer (Nishino; Para. [0038, 40]. A first portion is set/scaled in accordance with a vertical size and a horizontal size in an enhancement layer.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan to adapt a positioning approach, by incorporating Nishino’s teaching wherein a vertical and horizontal sizes are used to position a FOV/video portion, for the motivation to hierarchically encoding video images having different fields of view (Nishino; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Soundararajan further teaches the first portion is associated with a first geographical area in which the first endpoint device resides (Soundararajan; Para. [0035], Fig. 3. A first portion corresponds to a first geographical area, i.e. surveillance area, where an endpoint device, i.e. camera, is placed.).
Claim 13-15 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate enhanced frames of video data by performing the steps of a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 4-7, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 8, 10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soundararajan (US Pub. 20030072375 A1) in view of Shen (US Pub. 20250184501 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Soundararajan discloses limitation in claim 1 (Soundararajan; See remarks regarding claim 1.), but decoding a second portion included in the video data, wherein the second portion also is smaller than the first video frame; extracting second position data corresponding to the second portion from the header information; combining the first enhanced video frame and the second portion based on the second position data to generate a second enhanced video frame.
However, Shen teaches decoding a second portion included in the video data, wherein the second portion also is smaller than the first video frame (Shen; Para. [0054]. Multiple FOV tiles/Portions including a second portion/tile in video data are decoded, wherein the second tile/portion is smaller than a first frame.);
extracting second position data corresponding to the second portion from the header information (Shen; Para. [0054]. Second position data for a second tile/portion is obtained from header information.);
combining the first enhanced video frame and the second portion based on the second position data to generate a second enhanced video frame (Shen; Para. [0054]. A first enhanced frame is combined with a second tile/portion in accordance with position data for generating a second enhanced frame.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan to adapt a multiple layer coding approach, by incorporating Shen’s teaching wherein multiple FOV tiles are employed to generate enhanced images, for the motivation to perform video coding with low latency bitstream distribution (Shen; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 10, Soundararajan discloses the header information (Soundararajan; Para. [0027]. Location information is obtained from header informauton.), but the header information comprises open bitstream header unit (OBU) header information associated with an Alliance for Open Media Video (AV1) specification.
However, Shen teaches the header information comprises open bitstream header unit (OBU) header information associated with an Alliance for Open Media Video (AV1) specification (Shen; Para. [0054]. Header information includes OBU for AV1 being used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Soundararajan to adapt a header scheme, by incorporating Shen’s teaching wherein OBU headers are employed for AV1 codec, for the motivation to perform video coding with low latency bitstream distribution (Shen; Abstract.).
Claim 16-17 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate enhanced frames of video data by performing the steps of a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 8, 10, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Regarding claim 18, modified Soundararajan furth teaches the first portion comprises one or more blocks of pixels or samples (Soundararajan; Para. [0027-28]. A first portion includes at least one macroblocks of pixels.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Soundararajan furth teaches the first portion includes a first boundary that is aligned with a first block boundary associated with the first video frame (Soundararajan; Para. [0027-28]. A first portion includes at least a first boundary that is at least aligned with a first block boundary of multiple block boundaries in a first video frame.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hendry (US Pub. 20170347109 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs mapping of tile grouping and samples.
Wang (US Pat. 8774266 B2) teaches a video coding system that performs signaling of scalability information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights