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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-25, and 28-29. Claim 28 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-25, and 28-29 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant argues that Wang et al. fails to teach “wherein the frame of video data includes one or more layers”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 12, Wang et al. teaches “To address the requirements described above, this document discloses a method usable in a processing system for coding a sequence comprising a plurality of pictures, wherein the group of pictures comprises an anchor picture serving as a reference for coding all of the plurality of pictures and at least one reference picture serving as a reference for coding at least some of the other of the group of pictures, the plurality of pictures defined in a plurality of hierarchical layers according to coding order. In one embodiment, a method comprises coding an l.sup.th subset of the plurality of pictures of the first hierarchical layer according to an l.sup.th hierarchical layer picture complexity; and after coding the l.sup.th set of the plurality of pictures of the l.sup.th hierarchical layer, coding a [mutually exclusive]l.sup.th+1 subset of the plurality of pictures of a l.sup.th+1 hierarchical layer according to a second hierarchical layer picture complexity measure.” In Paragraph 13, Wang et al. teaches “Another embodiment is evidenced by an apparatus for coding the aforementioned sequence comprising a plurality of pictures. The apparatus comprises a processor and a memory, communicatively coupled to the processor. The memory stores processor instructions comprising instructions for coding an l.sup.th subset of the plurality of pictures of the first hierarchical layer according to an l.sup.th hierarchical layer picture complexity, and after coding the l.sup.th set of the plurality of pictures of the l.sup.th hierarchical layer, coding a [mutually exclusive]l.sup.th+1 subset of the plurality of pictures of a l.sup.th+1 hierarchical layer according to a second hierarchical layer picture complexity measure.” This clearly and unambiguously teaches frames including “one or more layers” as claimed.
Applicant argues that Wang et al. does not teach “compare layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the frame of video data and layer information associated with one or more layers included in a previous frame of video data”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 84, Wang et al. teaches “Temporal prediction considers information from temporally neighboring pictures or frames, such as the previous picture, picture i−1.” This clearly teaches that temporally neighboring pictures or frames may be considered or compared in the current encoding. In Paragraph 109, Wang et al. teaches “FIG. 13 is a diagram of one embodiment a technique for handling scene changes within GOPs. In this embodiment, if a scene change is in the first half of a current GOP, extend the previous GOP and short the current GOP. If the scene change is in the second half of a current GOP, short the current GOP and extend the next GOP, as further described below.” This clearly teaches detecting scene changes by temporal comparison within GOPs. In Paragraph 134, Wang et al. teaches “A GOP 1302 can therefore be considered in a heretical structure having a plurality of layers.” In Paragraph 135, Wang et al. teaches “FIG. 16 is a diagram illustrating one embodiment of GOP layers. The illustrated layers include a zeroth layer 1602-0, a first layer 1602-1, a second layer 1602-2, and a third layer 1602-3 (alternatively referred to hereinafter as layer(s) or layer 1602).” In Paragraph 145 Wang et al. teaches “For a GOP 1302 with multiple coding layers 1602, the initial GOP length is equal to NGOP=. Math.l .Math. .Math.Nl (16) where N.sub.l is the number of pictures in layer l 1602.” This clearly and unambiguously teaches that different frames of a GOP may have different layers, which in addition to the comparison to detect scene changes within GOPs, necessarily requires the comparison of the frames with their associated layers.
Applicant argues that Wang et al. fails to teach “generate, based on determining a frame geometry change associated with the frame of video data, an inter-predicted frame using the frame of video data” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraphs 164-168, as summarized in claim 16, Wang et al. teaches “spatial local activity measure for the current picture (avg_act) is computed as one of: an arithmetic mean of the spatial local activity of the smallest coding units minCU(ii) of the picture; an median of the spatial local activity of the smallest coding units minCU(ii) of the picture; and an geometric mean of the spatial local activity of the smallest coding units minCU(ii) of the picture.” Which clearly teaches generating spatial local activity based on a geometric information. As discussed above, in the other remarks, Wang et al. already teaches detecting a scene change within a GOP by comparing frames. Thus, since geometry information is clearly used to determine activity in images within scenes, the detection of scene change necessarily is also a geometry change.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
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)(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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-25, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20150281705 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. teaches an apparatus for processing video data, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Paragraph 13), the at least one processor configured to:
obtain a frame of video data associated with a display of a computing device, wherein the frame of video data includes one or more layers (Paragraphs 12-13; Paragraphs 134-147);
compare layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the frame of video data and layer information associated with one or more layers included in a previous frame of video data (Paragraph 84; Paragraphs 108-118; Paragraphs 134-148);
generate, based on determining a frame geometry change associated with the frame of video data, an inter-predicted frame using the frame of video data (Paragraphs 104-112; Paragraphs 134-147; Paragraphs 164-168; since geometry information is clearly used to determine activity in images within scenes, the detection of scene change necessarily is also a geometry change); and
determine an updated group of pictures (GOP) length based on the layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the frame of video data (Paragraphs 104-122; Paragraphs 134-147).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the updated GOP length based on layer information associated with a primary layer included in the frame of video data (Paragraphs 104-122; Paragraphs 134-147).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the layer information includes, for each respective layer included in the one or more layers, at least one of a layer name associated with each respective layer, a layer format associated with each respective layer, and one or more coordinates associated with each respective layer (Paragraphs 134-147).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the layer information includes at least one of a quantity of layers or a frame layer number (Paragraphs 134-147).
6. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the frame geometry change associated with the frame of video data based on comparing the layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the frame of video data and the layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the previous frame of video data (Paragraphs 104-122; Paragraphs 134-147).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that a frame geometry change is not associated with the frame of video data, based on the layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the frame of video data changing by less than a threshold amount compared to the layer information associated with the one or more layers included in the previous frame of video data (Paragraphs 104-122; Paragraphs 134-147).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a display idle state associated with the frame of video data, based on the frame of video data and a pre-determined quantity of previous frames of video data not being associated with a frame geometry change; and apply a display idle GOP length, wherein the display idle GOP length is greater than the updated GOP length (Paragraphs 104-122; Paragraphs 134-147).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: encode the frame of video data as a predicted frame (P-frame) or a bidirectional frame (B- frame) based on the frame of video data not being associated with a frame geometry change (Paragraph 80; Paragraph 85; Paragraphs 104-122).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the frame of video data is a frame of captured video display data associated with wireless display sharing from the computing device to a second computing device (Paragraph 45).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the frame of video data and the previous frame of video data are sequential frames included in a plurality of frames of captured video display data (Paragraphs 12-13).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: encode at least a portion of the plurality of frames of captured video display data using the inter-predicted frame (Paragraphs 73-80; Paragraph 85-87).
Method claims 16-17, 19, 21, 23-25, and 28-29 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-14 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights