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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025 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 § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagavathy et al., (US 2012/0224629 A1) referred to as BHAGAVATHY hereinafter in view of Wang et al., (US 2007/0076957 A1) referred to as WANG_957 hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, BASEREF shows (Currently Amended) A method for encoding a picture in which at least a first object has been detected, wherein the picture comprises a first block (Paragraph [0007]), the method comprising:
obtaining first bounding information indicating the spatial location of the first object within the picture (Paragraph [0007], total area of at least on object of interest.), wherein the first bounding information specifies a first picture area within which the first object is located (Paragraph [0007], 'object weighted frames');
determining a size value indicating a size of the first picture area and comparing the determined size value to a size threshold (Paragraph [0007] describes how thresholds of bounded areas are compared to total areas, which are equivalent to picture areas that were determined.);
and determining a first quantization parameter, QP,(QP)value for the first block, wherein determining the first QP value for the first block comprises using the first bounding information in a process for determining the first QP value (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.), wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
quantizing data associated with the first block using the determined first QP value (FIG. 6, 620 and Paragraph [0061] discloses a Transmitter/Quantizer, which inherently performs quantization.).
However, BHAGAVATHY fails to but WANG_957 does specifically show determining a first overlap value specifying the amount of the first picture area that is included within the first block and comparing the first overlap value to a first overlap threshold (This is an alternative limitation and therefore does not need to be mapped as it is not the alternative being selected. However, Paragraph [0086], wherein the overlap is compared to a predetermined overlap value, e.g., 10%, which would be the threshold to take action.));
Both BHAGAVATHY and WANG_957 are analogous to the claimed invention in that they lie within the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BHAGAVATHY in the spirit of WANG_957 because it allows preferential encoding to ROI in very low bit-rate applications, thereby allowing these regions to be viewed more clearly by viewers (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, BHAGAVATHY shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
as a result of the first overlap value being greater than the first overlap threshold, setting the first QP value to a first value (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
However, BHAGAVATHY fails to but WANG_957 does specifically show determining the first overlap value (Paragraph [0086]); and
comparing the first overlap value to the first overlap threshold (Paragraph [0086], wherein the overlap is compared to a predetermined overlap value, e.g., 10%, which would be the threshold to take action.);
Both BHAGAVATHY and WANG_957 are analogous to the claimed invention in that they lie within the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BHAGAVATHY in the spirit of WANG_957 because it allows preferential encoding to ROI in very low bit-rate applications, thereby allowing these regions to be viewed more clearly by viewers (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
determining the size value (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007], total area of at least one object of interest.);
comparing the determined size value to the size threshold (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007] describes how thresholds of bounded areas are compared to total areas, which are equivalent to picture areas that were determined.);
determining a second overlap value specifying the amount by which the first block is covered by the first picture area (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007], a low or high object weighted frame.);
comparing the second overlap value to a second overlap threshold (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007], "…exceeding/not exceeding the threshold area…");
and as a result of the size value of the first picture area being less than the size threshold and the first overlap value being greater than the second overlap threshold, setting the first QP value to a first value (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
Regarding claim 7, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the size is a relative size or absolute size (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein a total area [size] is determined as well as a percentage of the total area [size], which is both relative and absolute.).
Regarding claim 9, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising:
obtaining a picture QP, wherein determining the first QP value for the first block further comprises using the first bounding information and the picture QP in the process for determining the first QP value (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest. This is also inherently going to be a QP value for the picture as well.).
Regarding claim 10, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 9 above, wherein using the first bounding information and the picture QP comprises:
using the size value and/or first overlap value to select one or more parameters (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007], i.e., greater than 10%.);
and using the one or more parameter and the picture QP to determine the first QP value (BHAGAVATHY: Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
Regarding claim 11, BASEREF shows a non-transitory computer readable storing medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which when executed by processing circuitry of an apparatus causes the apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (BHAGAVATHY: FIG. 6, 602; memory).
Regarding Claim 13, BHAGAVATHY shows an encoder apparatus (FIG. 6) for encoding a picture in which at least a first object has been detected, wherein the picture comprises a first block, the encoder apparatus configured to perform the method according to any of claims 1 10 comprising:
memory (FIG. 6, 602; memory);
and processing circuitry (FIG. 6, 601; processor), wherein the encoder apparatus is configured to perform a method comprising:
obtaining first bounding information indicating the spatial location of the first object within the picture (Paragraph [0007], total area of at least on object of interest.), wherein the first bounding information specifies a first picture area within which the first object is located (Paragraph [0007], 'object weighted frames');
determining a size value indicating a size of the first picture area and comparing the determined size value to a size threshold (Paragraph [0007] describes how thresholds of bounded areas are compared to total areas, which are equivalent to picture areas that were determined.);
and determining a first quantization parameter (QP) value for the first block, wherein determining the first QP value for the first block comprises using the first bounding information in a process for determining the first QP value (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.), wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
quantizing data associated with the first block using the determined first QP value (FIG. 6, 620 and Paragraph [0061] discloses a Transmitter/Quantizer, which inherently performs quantization.).
However, BHAGAVATHY fails to but WANG_957 does specifically show determining a first overlap value specifying the amount of the first picture area that is included within the first block and comparing the first overlap value to a first overlap threshold (This is an alternative limitation and therefore does not need to be mapped as it is not the alternative being selected. However, Paragraph [0086], wherein the overlap is compared to a predetermined overlap value, e.g., 10%, which would be the threshold to take action.));
Both BHAGAVATHY and WANG_957 are analogous to the claimed invention in that they lie within the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BHAGAVATHY in the spirit of WANG_957 because it allows preferential encoding to ROI in very low bit-rate applications, thereby allowing these regions to be viewed more clearly by viewers (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, BHAGAVATHY shows the limitations as per Claim 13 above, wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
as a result of the first overlap value being greater than the first overlap threshold, setting the first QP value to a first value (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
However, BHAGAVATHY fails to but WANG_957 does specifically show determining the first overlap value (Paragraph [0086]); and
comparing the first overlap value to the first overlap threshold (Paragraph [0086], wherein the overlap is compared to a predetermined overlap value, e.g., 10%, which would be the threshold to take action.);
Both BHAGAVATHY and WANG_957 are analogous to the claimed invention in that they lie within the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BHAGAVATHY in the spirit of WANG_957 because it allows preferential encoding to ROI in very low bit-rate applications, thereby allowing these regions to be viewed more clearly by viewers (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, BHAGAVATHY shows the limitations as per Claim 13 above, wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
determining the size value (Paragraph [0007], total area of at least one object of interest.);
comparing the determined size value to the size threshold (Paragraph [0007] describes how thresholds of bounded areas are compared to total areas, which are equivalent to picture areas that were determined.);
determining a second overlap value specifying the amount by which the first block is covered by the first picture area (Paragraph [0007], a low or high object weighted frame.);
comparing the second overlap value to a second overlap threshold (Paragraph [0007], "…exceeding/not exceeding the threshold area…");
and as a result of the size value of the first picture area being less than the size threshold and the first overlap value being greater than the second overlap threshold, setting the first QP value to a first value (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
Regarding claim 19, BHAGAVATHY shows the limitations as per Claim 13 above, wherein the size is a relative size or absolute size (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein a total area [size] is determined as well as a percentage of the total area [size], which is both relative and absolute.).
Regarding claim 21, BHAGAVATHY shows the limitations as per Claim 13 above, wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining a picture QP, wherein determining the first QP value for the first block further comprises using the first bounding information and the picture QP in the process for determining the first QP value (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest. This is also inherently going to be a QP value for the picture as well.).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATHY in view of WANG_957 as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, above, and further in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claims 1 and 13 above, further comprising:
detecting a second object in the picture (Paragraph [0007] discloses detecting at least one, which permits the possibility of two.); and
However, while BHAGAVATHY fails to specifically disclose the specific processing on a second object/ROI, it is merely replicating and distributing the processing done in claim 1 on a first ROI to a 2nd, 3rd, etc ROI. The instant disclosure even mentions merely, “at least one object of interest”. Therefore, the examiner is taking official notice that it would have been common knowledge to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely replicate the known process ad infinitum for detected ROIs in an iterative manner until satisfied.
One would be motivated to do so as most images have many objects of interest to many folks and one would want those to be focused on and be processed as efficiently and clearly as possible.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATHY in view of WANG_957 and in further view of Wang et al., (US 20210192217 A1) referred to as WANG_217 hereinafter.
Regarding claim 8, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising:
wherein using the first bounding information in the process for determining the first QP value is performed if the certainty score exceeds the certainty threshold (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
However, BHAGAVATHY in view of WANG_957 fails to but WANG_957 does specifically show determining a certainty score, wherein the certainty score specifies a level of certainty that the first object exists in the picture (Claim 12, confidence);
wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
comparing the certainty score to a certainty threshold (Claim 12 shows comparing confidence to determine ROI vs non-ROI regions).
BHAGAVATHY, WANG_957 and WANG_217 are analogous to the claimed invention in that they lie within the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of BHAGAVATHY in view of WANG_957 in the spirit of WANG_217 because it uses objective, rule-based criteria to identify useful ROIs as opposed to subjective data to control encoding cost (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 20, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 13 above, wherein the method further comprises:
wherein using the first bounding information in the process for determining the first QP value is performed if the certainty score exceeds the certainty threshold (Paragraph [0007] discloses wherein QPs are determined based on macroblocks representing the areas of the objects of interest.).
However, BHAGAVATHY in view of WANG_957 fails to but WANG_957 does specifically show determining a certainty score, wherein the certainty score specifies a level of certainty that the first object exists in the picture (Claim 12, confidence);
wherein the process for determining the first QP value comprises:
comparing the certainty score to a certainty threshold (Claim 12 shows comparing confidence to determine ROI vs non-ROI regions).
BHAGAVATHY, WANG_957 and WANG_217 are analogous to the claimed invention in that they lie within the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of BHAGAVATHY in view of WANG_957 in the spirit of WANG_217 because it uses objective, rule-based criteria to identify useful ROIs as opposed to subjective data to control encoding cost (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights