DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/056,081, filed 18 February 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/624,786, now U.S. Patent No. 12,231,636, filed 4 January 2022, which is a National Stage Entry of International Application No. PCT/GB2020/051618, filed 6 July 2020, which claims priority to Provisional Application No. 62/984,261, filed 2 March 2020, and claims foreign priority to British Applications GB1914414.6, file 6 October 2019, GB1914413.8, filed 6 October 2019, GB1914215.7, filed 2 October 2019, GB1911546.8, filed 13 August 2019, GB1911545.0, filed 12 August 2019, GB1911467.7, filed 9 August 2019, GB1910674.9, filed 25 July 2019, GB1909997.7, filed 11 July 2019, GB1909724.5, filed 6 July 2019, and GB1909701.3, filed 5 July 2019.
Claims 2–21 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as with the specification as originally filed in the parent ‘786 application, the present application contains “Error! Reference source not found”. Instances of this occur on page 69 (twice), page 70, page 71, and 73. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because it does not end with a period (full stop). M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m).
Claims 3, 11, 13, and 15–19 are objected to for want of conformity to 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i), which requires each element or step of a claim to be separated by a line indentation. This includes, for example, multiple distinct and substantial limitations in claim preambles, and substantive wherein clauses.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 16 each recite an optional limitation. It is unclear whether the optional limitation is intended to be binding, or whether the claims can be broader than the optional limitations. M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(h)(II). Applicant may amend claims 8 and 16 to delete the optional limitations, make the optional limitations mandatory, or place the optional limitations in new dependent claims. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, the optional limitations are not considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4–10, 12–16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yun Q. Shi & Huifang Sun, “Image and video Compression for Multimedia Engineering: Fundamentals, Algorithms, and Standards” (2000) (“Shi”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0319437 A1 (“Zhang”)1.
Shi, a textbook on image and video compression, teaches with respect to claim 2, [a] method of encoding an input signal into a plurality of encoded streams (§ 16.2.2.6, scalability existent as early as MPEG-2),
wherein the encoded streams may be combined to reconstruct the input signal, the method comprising (id.):
receiving an input signal (Fig. 16.17, receiving HDTV input);
downsampling the input signal to create a downsampled signal (id., downsampling the HDTV input to an SDTV signal);
instructing an encoding of the downsampled signal using a base encoder to create a base encoded stream (id., encoding the SDTV signal as a base layer bitstream);
instructing a decoding of the base encoded stream using a base decoder to generate a reconstructed signal (id., decoding and upsampling base layer bitstream);
comparing the reconstructed signal to the input signal to create a set of residuals (§ 16.2.2.6, enhancement layer is prediction error based on the base layer data); and,
encoding the set of residuals to create an encoded stream (Fig. 16.17, MPEG-2 coding enhancement layer bitstream), including:
applying a transform to the set of residuals to create a set of transformed coefficients (Fig. 17.3.2, encoder in MPEG-type encoder includes coefficient transform);
applying a quantization operation to the set of transformed coefficients to create a set of quantized coefficients (id., quantizer); and
applying an encoding operation to the quantized coefficients (id., variable-length coding).
The claimed invention differs from Shi in that the claimed invention specifies the quantization is based on “temporal information”, discussed in more detail in the dependent claims. Shi, published during the Clinton administration, does not necessarily disclose the temporal information as claimed in the dependent claims. However, Zhang, directed to constant-quality video coding, teaches with respect to claim 2:
wherein the quantization operation is performed based on temporal information associated with the set of transformed coefficients (¶¶ 0029, 0033–34; modifying initial quantization parameters based on temporal complexity values 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to improve on the spatially-scalable MPEG-2 codec by using temporal complexity values to determine quantization parameters, as taught by Zhang, in order to preserve quality across scene changes. Zhang ¶¶ 0032–33.
Regarding claim 4, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising deriving one or more quantization parameters based on the temporal information (Zhang ¶¶ 0029, 0033–34; modifying initial quantization parameters based on temporal complexity values 117).
Regarding claim 5, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising determining a first quantization parameter for a first subset of the set of coefficients associated with first temporal information (Zhang ¶¶ 0037–38; scene change detection based on per-frame value of temporal complexity; different frames have different values of this variable).
Regarding claim 6, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 5, further comprising determining a second quantization parameter for a second subset of the set of coefficients associated with second temporal information (Zhang ¶¶ 0037–38; scene change detection based on per-frame value of temporal complexity; different frames have different values of this variable).
Regarding claim 7, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising determining the temporal information associated with the set of coefficients by deriving a correlation between co-located sets of coefficients at different samples (Zhang ¶ 0036, weighted average method of comparing temporal complexity to past temporal complexities to determine scene change).
Regarding claim 8, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the temporal information comprises whether or not the set or subset of coefficients is one of the following: static, quasi-static, and dynamic (Zhang ¶ 0036, threshold value of ratio between present and past complexities determines scene change).
Regarding claim 9, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein a given set or subset of coefficients in a layer is quasi-static if the difference with a corresponding co-located set or subset of coefficients in a previous and/or a subsequent sample has a lower estimated information entropy than the estimated information entropy of the given set or subset of coefficients (¶ 0036, complexity ratio below scene change threshold).
Regarding claim 10, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein a given set or subset of coefficients in a layer is dynamic if the difference with a corresponding co-located set or subset of coefficients in a previous and/or a subsequent sample has substantially same or higher estimated information entropy than the estimated information entropy of the given set or subset of coefficients (¶ 0036, complexity ratio above scene change threshold).
Regarding claim 12, Shi in view of Shang teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the quantization operation is performed in accordance with one or more quantization parameters,
wherein the one or more quantization parameters are set to at least one of: control, and provide a desired bitrate in, one or more encoded streams (Shi § 17.3.2, quantization steps quantize transformed coefficients according to a bit rate budget).
Regarding claim 13, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the desired bitrate is a common bitrate for all streams to generate a common encoded stream (Shi § 16.2.2.6, combined temporal rate of the base and enhancement layers), or
wherein different bitrates are provided for different encoded streams (id., individual temporal rates of the base and enhancement layers).
Regarding claim 14, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the one or more quantization parameters are set so as to provide a desired quality level, or to maximize a quality level, within a set of pre-defined bit-rate constraints (Shi § 17.3.2, optimal quantizer for a given reduced bit rate)[.]
Regarding claim 15, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 12, comprising determining quantisation2 parameters by receiving a status of a buffer that receives the one or more encoded streams and the base encoded stream (Shi § 16.4.1, video buffering verifier); and
using the status to determine the quantisation parameters (§ 16.4.2, “adapting the macroblock quantization parameter for controlling the bit rate”; § 16.4.2.1, target bit allocation based on buffer fullness);
wherein the buffer is used to at least one of: store and combine, an encoded base stream and an encoded enhancement stream (§ 16.2.2.6, scalable bitstream), and
is configured to receive inputs at variable bitrates while the output is read at a constant rate (§ 16.4.1, VBR input with CBR coding), and
wherein a rate controller reads the status from the buffer so as to ensure that the buffer does not overflow or get empty (§ 16.4.2.2, adjusting virtual buffer fullness), and
that data are always available to be read at its output (id.), and
wherein a status of the buffer is used to generate the one or more quantisation parameters (§ 16.4.2.3, adaptive quantization);
wherein the one or more quantisation parameters are controlled based on the amount of data within the buffer (id.);
wherein the values of the quantization parameters are inversely related to the amount of data in the buffer (§ 16.4.2.1, “the number of bits generated by the encoder is inversely proportional to the quantization step”).
Regarding claim 16, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the quantization parameters are determined for at least one of: each frame, residual, and group of residuals (Shi § 17.3.2, quantizer step assigned to set of coefficients that make up an individual transform block).
Regarding claim 19, Shi in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein a stepwidth used in the quantization operation is varied in accordance with a stepwidth parameter (Zhang ¶ 0033, quantization parameter QP ordinarily meaning with the art a quantization step size),
wherein the stepwidth parameter is based on the temporal information (¶¶ 0036–41, QP based on temporal complexity).
Claims 3, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Zhang and in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,535,558 B1 (“Suzuki”). Claims 3, 20, and 21 discuss details of spatially scalable encoding and decoding not presented in the abbreviated diagrams given in Shi alone.
Suzuki, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 3 in combination with Shi and Zhang:
the method according to claim 2, wherein the set of residuals is a first set of residuals (tautological)
and the step of comparing comprises comparing the reconstructed signal to the downsampled signal to create the first set of residuals such that the encoded stream is a first level encoded stream (Suzuki Fig. 3, arithmetic unit 23 finds the difference between input lower layer signals and prediction reference picture signals), the method further comprising:
decoding the first set of residuals to generate a decoded first set of residuals (id., inverse quantizer 28 and inverse DCT 29);
correcting the reconstructed signal using the decoded first set of residuals to generate a corrected reconstructed signal (id., feedback loop);
upsampling the corrected reconstructed signal to generate an up-sampled reconstructed signal (id., outputting to upper layer encoding circuit; Shi Fig. 16.17, spatially upsampling the decoded base layer bitstream);
comparing the up-sampled reconstructed signal to the input signal to create a second set of residuals (Shi § 16.2.2.6, “The enhancement layer bitstream . . . can be seen as the prediction error based on the base layer data”); and
encoding the second set of residuals to create a second level encoded stream (Shi Fig. 16.17, MPEG-2 encoding the enhancement layer bitstream), including:
applying a transform to the second set of residuals to create a second set of coefficients (Fig. 1.7.2, transform T in MPEG-type encoder);
a second set of quantized coefficients (id., quantizer Q); and
applying an encoding operation to the second set of quantized coefficients (id., variable length coder VLC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to build the Shi MPEG-2 spatially scalable encoder using the details of the Suzuki MPEG-2 spatially scalable encoder, to ensure compliance with the MPEG-2 codec.
Regarding claim 20, Shi in view of Zhang and Suzuki teaches a method of decoding an encoded stream into a reconstructed output signal, the method comprising:
receiving a first output signal decoded from a first base encoded stream according to a first codec (Suzuki Fig. 13, lower layer decoding circuit receives a lower layer bitstream through buffer 91);
receiving a level encoded stream (Fig. 14, upper layer decoding circuit receives an upper layer bitstream through buffer 101);
decoding the level encoded stream to obtain a set of residuals (id., upper layer decoder components 101–104); and
combining the set of residuals with the first output signal to generate a reconstructed signal (id., arithmetic unit 105 adds decoded upper layer bitstream and motion compensated lower layer picture signal),
wherein the decoding the level encoded stream comprises:
decoding a set of quantized coefficients from the level encoded stream (id., inverse quantization circuit 103);
dequantizing the set of quantized coefficients (id., inverse DCT circuit 104) . . . based on temporal information associated with the level encoded stream (Zhang ¶¶ 0029, 0033–34; quantization parameters are based on temporal complexity values 117).
Regarding claim 21, all other things equal to claim 20, at least Suzuki describes a decoder comprising decoding circuits. Suzuki 25:6–10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Zhang and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0062448 A1 (“Zeng”)3. Claim 11 recites specific details of the quantization operation not taught by Shi or Zheng. However, Zeng, directed to an imaging codec, teaches with respect to claim 11 in combination with Shi and Zhang the method according to claim 2,
wherein the quantization operation comprises quantizing the coefficients using a linear quantizer (Fig. 3, ¶ 0016, quantizer has a uniform step size),
wherein the linear quantizer uses a dead zone of variable size (id., dead zone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the Zeng quantization operation as the Shi quantizer, in order to use the most appropriate quantization parameters for the particular data being compressed. Zeng ¶ 0016.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claim 17 limitations defining a set of curves to map a normalized size onto one or more quantization parameters, wherein each curve comprises one or more of a multiplier and an offset that depends upon the properties of a current frame, is considered patentable over the prior art as of the effective filing date of the present application. The examiner disagrees with the finding in the Written Opinion in corresponding application PCT/GB2020/051619 that claim 56 is not patentable over M.O. Martínez-Rach, P. Piñol Peral, O.M. López-Granado, & M.P. Malumbres, “Optimizing the R/D coding performance by tuning quantization parameters”, 49 J. of Visual Comm. & Image Representation 274–282 (Sept. 2017). Specifically, a contrast sensitivity function (CSF) curve that is a function of normalized spatial frequency (§ 2.3) is not a normalization of quantization parameters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2014/0003497 A1
US 10,645,386 B1
US 2019/0349607 A1
US 2019/0289296 A1
US 2018/0278936 A1
US 2016/0057418 A1
US 2013/0114688 A1
US 2009/0058691 A1
US 2005/0175093 A1
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2004/0013202 A1
US 2018/0063544 A1
US 2005/0105622 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 This reference was cited in the 11 September 2025 Information Disclosure Statement.
2 The variant spellings “quantisation” and “quantization” do not affect the claim scope. M.P.E.P. § 608.01 (British spellings acceptable for the English language requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 152(b)(1)(ii)). However, Applicant is advised to pick one consistent spelling.
3 JP 2001-298366 A, a non-English equivalent, was used to reject identical claims in related applications 18/966,783 and 17/441,040.
Prosecution Insights