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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 6-7, 9-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art, non-patent literature by Ioannis Katsavounidis, titled “Dynamic Optimizer – A Perceptual Video Encoding Optimization Framework” (hereinafter Katsavounidis) in view of non-patent literature by Manohara et al, titled “Optimized shot-based encodes: Now Streaming!” (hereinafter Manohara).
Referring to claim 1, Katsavounidis discloses a computer-implemented method for determining video quality for streaming media implementations, the method comprising:
generating an encoded video based on a source video (see pages 3-6 and Fig. 5 on page 10 for disclosing an input/source video is broken into shots, in which each of the source video shots are encoded);
decoding the encoded video to generate a decoded video (see Fig. 5 on pages 10 for disclosing the encoded video is then decoded ;
generating a comparison video based on the decoded video and computing a video quality score based on the source video and the comparison video (see pages 9-10 for disclosing a comparison video (i.e., the video created after the high quality up sampling) is generated based on the decoded video and pages 6-7 and 12-16 for disclosing the computing of a video quality score through the use of VMAF or PSNR based on the source and comparison video),
wherein the encoded video is selected for transmission to a client device (see pages 3 and 17 for disclosing the encoded video shots/chunks are streamed to clients).
Katsavounidis is unclear as to selecting encoded video based on the video quality score
Manohara discloses selecting encoded video based on the video quality score (see pages 5-12 for disclosing the selection of encoded video (e.g., AVCHi-Opt encodes or VP9-Opt encodes) for transmission based on video quality scores).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the selection of video based on a video quality score of Manohara with the system of Katsavounidis in order to allow for more efficient compression algorithms that enable the delivery of the same or better picture quality while using less bandwidth (see Manohara, page 1).
Referring to claim 6, Katsavounidis discloses the video quality score is computed using a video quality metric as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 7, Katsavounidis discloses the video quality score is computed using video multimethod assessment fusion (VMAF) as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 9, Katsavounidis discloses generating at least a portion of a bitrate ladder using the video quality score (see page 17 for disclosing the generation of a bitrate ladder via usage of the dynamic optimizer process including VMAF).
Referring to claim 10, Katsavounidis discloses the transmitting the encoded video to the client device as seen in the rejection of claim 1. Manohara discloses transmitting video based on the video quality score and a network bandwidth (see pages 7-12 for disclosing the transmitting video based on the best VMAF score and an average cellular connection bandwidth of 250kbps).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting Katsavounidis in view of Manohara discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (see page 3 for disclosing a server) that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Referring to claims 18 and 19, Katsavounidis in view of Manohara discloses the client device receiving the video based on the video quality score as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Katsavounidis in view of Manohara is unclear as to transmitting a video quality indication to a client device, wherein the client device requests a video based on the indicated video quality.
Official Notice is taken that the process of transmitting a video quality indication to a client device, wherein the client device requests a video based on the indicated video quality is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Katsavounidis in view of Manohara to send an indication of the quality of video to a client device to allow the client device to request the video based on the quality so that the client can request the video that is best suited for display on the client while considering client and network capabilities.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting Katsavounidis discloses a system, comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories (see page 3 for disclosing a server) and, when executing the instructions, are configured toto perform the method as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsavounidis in view of Manohara, and further in view of Gomila et al (hereinafter Gomila) US 20060140278.
Referring to claim 2, Katsavounidis in view of Manohara discloses generating the comparison video, including downscaling/down sampling the video and upscaling/up sampling the decoded video as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Katsavounidis in view of Manohara is unclear as to extracting film grain from the source video, downscaling the film grain to generate downscaled film grain, adding the downscaled film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video.
Gomila discloses extracting film grain from the source video (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019 for disclosing the extraction of film grain from a source video), downscaling the film grain to generate downscaled film grain (see Figs. 2-3B and Paragraphs 0027-0033 for disclosing the film grain simulator downscales the film grain generating downscaled film grain), adding the downscaled film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video (see Paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0027-0033 for disclosing the film grain simulator adds/combines the downscaled film grain to the decoded video to generate “renoised video”, as it is the same video from which the film noise was extracted).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the film grain process of Gomila with the system of Katsavounidis in view of Manohara in order to provide the need for a technique for deblocking film grain blocks, which achieves better quality (i.e., reduced artifacts) while maintaining a low computational cost (see Gomila, Paragraph 0010).
Referring to claim 3, Katsavounidis discloses generating the comparison video comprises downscaling the source video to generate a downscaled video and upscaling the video to generate the comparison video (see Fig. 5 on page 10 for disclosing the source video is downscaled/down sampled, then later upscaled/up sampled to generate the comparison video).
Katsavounidis in view of Manohara is unclear as to extracting film grain from the video and adding the film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video.
Gomila discloses extracting film grain from the video (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019 for disclosing the extraction of film grain from a video) and adding the film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video film (see Paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0027-0033 for disclosing the film grain simulator adds/combines the film grain to the decoded video to generate “renoised video”, as it is the same video from which the film noise was extracted).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the film grain process of Gomila with the system of Katsavounidis in view of Manohara in order to provide the need for a technique for deblocking film grain blocks, which achieves better quality (i.e., reduced artifacts) while maintaining a low computational cost (see Gomila, Paragraph 0010).
Referring to claim 8, Katsavounidis discloses generating the encoded video comprises downscaling video to generate the encoded video (see Fig. 5 on page 10 for disclosing the video is downscaled/down sampled to then generate the encoded video).
Katsavounidis in view of Manohara is unclear as to denoising the source video to generate a denoised video.
Gomila discloses denoising the source video to generate a denoised video (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019 for disclosing the extraction of film grain from a video, further noting that denoising and de-graining are interpreted to be equivalent).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the film grain process of Gomila with the system of Katsavounidis in view of Manohara in order to provide the need for a technique for deblocking film grain blocks, which achieves better quality (i.e., reduced artifacts) while maintaining a low computational cost (see Gomila, Paragraph 0010).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-11, and 16-20 of copending Application No. 19041884 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the instant application are broader than the claim limitations of the cited copending application.
The limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claims 1, 11, and 20 of the copending application, respectively.
The limitations of claims 6 and 16 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claims 7 and 17 of the copending application, respectively.
The limitations of claim 7 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claim 8 of the copending application.
The limitations of claim 8 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claim 2 of the copending application.
The limitations of claims 9 and 17 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claim 9 of the copending application.
The limitations of claim 18 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claim 18 of the copending application.
The limitations of claim 19 of the instant application are broader than the limitations found in claim 19 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4 and 12-14 of copending Application No. 19041884 in view of Gomila et al (hereinafter Gomila) US 20060140278.
Referring to claims 2 and 12 of the instant application, claim 4 and 14, respectively, of the copending application discloses the source video, adding film grain to decoded video to generate a renoised video, and upscaling the renoised video to generate a comparison video.
The copending application is unclear as to extracting film grain and downscaling film grain.
Gomila discloses extracting film grain from the source video (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019 for disclosing the extraction of film grain from a source video), downscaling the film grain to generate downscaled film grain (see Figs. 2-3B and Paragraphs 0027-0033 for disclosing the film grain simulator downscales the film grain generating downscaled film grain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the film grain process of Gomila with the system of the copending application in order to provide the need for a technique for deblocking film grain blocks, which achieves better quality (i.e., reduced artifacts) while maintaining a low computational cost (see Gomila, Paragraph 0010).
Referring to claims 3 and 13 of the instant application, claims 2 and 4, and 12 and 14, respectively, of the copending application discloses downscaling the source video to generate a downscaled video, adding film gain to a decoded video to generate a renoised video, and upscaled the renoised video to generate a comparison video.
The copending application is unclear as to extracting film grain.
Gomila discloses extracting film grain from the source video (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019 for disclosing the extraction of film grain from a source video)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the film grain process of Gomila with the system of the copending application in order to provide the need for a technique for deblocking film grain blocks, which achieves better quality (i.e., reduced artifacts) while maintaining a low computational cost (see Gomila, Paragraph 0010).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 contain allowable subject matter, but are dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Walls et al US20250373830 for disclosing downscaling of decoded video and adding film grain noise to the video;
Gadgil et al US 20230308667 for disclosing the down-sampling film grain that is to be injected into images;
Katsavounidis US20220094734 for an early citation date corresponding to an applicant-admitted prior art; and
Norkin US 20190066272 for an early citation date corresponding to an applicant-admitted prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/NICHOLAS T CORBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
03/05/2026