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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Application No. 63552603, filed on 2/12/2024 and is hereby incorporated by references.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/30/2025 and 7/22/2025. 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsavounidis (“Dynamic optimizer-a perceptual video encoding optimization framework” 3/5/2018; applicant provided prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Katsavounidis discloses a computer-implemented method for determining video quality for streaming media implementations [e.g. FIG. 5; encoding image by video codec and determining RD], the method comprising: generating a first comparison video based on a source video [e.g. FIG. 5; input source video]; generating an encoded video based on the source video [e.g. output of encode box]; decoding the encoded video to generate a decoded video [e.g. output of decode box]; generating a second comparison video based on the decoded video [output of up sampling video]; and computing a video quality score[e.g. PSNR or VMAF]] based on the first comparison video and the second comparison video, wherein the encoded video is selected for transmission to a client device [e.g. streaming client] based on the video quality score [e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 5; page 17; it benefits both standalone bitstream creation, intended for downloading and offline consumption, as well as full bitrate ladder creation, used for adapting streaming].
Regarding claim 20, this is a system that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
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.
Claim(s) 2-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsavounidis (“Dynamic optimizer-a perceptual video encoding optimization framework” 3/5/2018; applicant provided prior art) in view of Oh et al (US 20080152296 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Katsavounidis further discloses generating the first comparison video comprises generating the encoded video comprises downscaling the source video [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; down sampling], and generating the second comparison video comprises upscaling the decoded video [FIG. 5; up sampling after decode], but Katsavounidis fails to explicitly disclose the detail of generating the first comparison video.
However, Oh teaches the well-known concept of generating the comparison video comprises denoising the source video [e.g. FIG. 1; element 3; noise removal].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system disclosed by Katsavounidis to exploit the well-known video encoding technique taught by Oh as above, in order to provide to improve the natural appearance of an image [See Oh; [0022]].
Regarding claim 3, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose generating the first comparison video comprises: denoising the source video to generate a denoised video [e.g. Oh: FIG. 1-2; noise removal]; and adding first synthesized film grain to the denoised video [e.g. Oh: 1-2 and 5; film grain noise synthesizer may generate film grain noise].
Regarding claim 4, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose generating the second comparison video comprises: adding second synthesized film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video; and upscaling the renoised video to generate the second comparison video [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; Oh: FIG. 1-3].
Regarding claim 5, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose generating the first comparison video comprises: computing first film grain at a first resolution [Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2; page 1-2; encoding parameters such as resolution/quality change; Oh: FIG. 1; [0022-0024]], wherein the encoded video has resolution equal to the first resolution; upscaling the first film grain to a second resolution to generate second film grain [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; Oh: FIG. 1-3], wherein the source video has a resolution equal to the second resolution [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5]; and adding the second film grain to a denoised version of the source video to generate the first comparison video [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; Oh: FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 6, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose generating the second comparison video comprises: adding the first film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video, and upscaling the renoised video to generate the second comparison video [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; Oh: FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 7, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose the video quality score is computed using a video quality metric [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; VMAF or PSNR; page 9-10 and 17].
Regarding claim 8, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose the video quality score is computed using video multimethod assessment fusion (VMAF) [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; VMAF].
Regarding claim 9, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose generating at least a portion of a bitrate ladder using the video quality score [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 1 and 5; VMAF; page 17; a bitrate ladder].
Regarding claim 10, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose transmitting the encoded video to the client device based on the video quality score and a network bandwidth [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; page 1-2 and 17-18; Oh: FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 11, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Oh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [e.g. [0065]; memory].
Regarding claim 12-19, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 2-6 and 8-10 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al (US 20170359580 A1).
KATSAVOUNIDIS (US 20200169592 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights