DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received on 09/08/2025, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 09/08/2025 and 08/04/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Please include reference to updating long term reference frames as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites “the quantizer parameter”, however, there is no reference to this in claim 3 on which it depends. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the phrase “zeroing operation”, however, as claimed, this is not readily clear with respect to the updating process. Although it appears this is described in ¶0084 of the filed specification, the claim does not provide further definition of this feature to help clarify said operation when updating the long-term reference frame. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 similarly recites “the quantizer parameter” as found in claim 5 above. For the same reason, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue et al. “Adaptive Long-term Reference Selection for Efficient Scalable Surveillance Video Coding”, 2018 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Embedded Multicore/Many-core Systems-on-Chip, 2018 (See IDS dated 08/04/2026), in view of Zhang et al. US 2007/0199011 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hue and Zhang, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Hue teaches and/or suggests “A method for coding multimedia data, performed by a computer device, and the method comprising: coding a current multimedia frame in multimedia data based on a long-term reference frame corresponding to the current multimedia frame, to obtain a current coded multimedia frame [See proposed SSVC solution to the SHVC standard with respect to the long-term reference structure (Sect. 3.3, pg. 71 with reference to fig. 3b and the proposed SSVC mechanism)]; obtaining coding quality of the long-term reference frame [See Sect. 3.4, pgs. 71-72 regarding use of the SAD metric when employing the adaptive long-term reference selection mechanism. The “coding quality” of the LTR frame can thus be obtained given its BRI. For more explicit support, see Zhang below]; calculating coding quality of the current coded multimedia frame [The SAD metric in sect. 3.4 pgs. 71 and 72 can be further employed for calculating the coding quality of a current coded frame]; determining a type of the current coded multimedia frame based on a motion vector corresponding to a coding block in the current coded multimedia frame [Given the BRI of the term “type” and recognizing a frame can be classified as static (MV = 0) or dynamic (MV ≠ 0) as per ¶0044 of the specification, see the surveillance video of Sect. 3.4, where scene changes can occur when a new movement of an object appears. Since there’s movement, scene changes in said video can be construed as dynamic. Although “motion vector” is not explicit, movement of said object indicates a displacement across captured scenes]; updating the long-term reference frame based on the coding quality of the current coded multimedia frame [Sect. 3.4 pg. 72 shows that based on the proposed reference selection mechanism with reference to equations 1 and 2, the current LTR will either be updated or will be continued to be used. Coding quality is described with respect to the SAD metric], the type of the current coded multimedia frame [Since the claim does not clearly define “type”, a scene in which movement occurs (Sect. 3.4 pg. 71) can be construed as dynamic], and the coding quality of the long-term reference frame [Given the BRI, this can be associated with the SAD metric of sect. 3.4 pgs. 71-72 above. Also please note the work of Zhang below]; and coding a subsequent multimedia frame in the multimedia data based on the updated long-term reference frame.” [The most recent reference frame will be updated for LTR of the current and consecutive frames (sect. 3.4 pg. 72). As to coding subsequent video frames please refer to fig. 2 depicting the proposed coding architecture] Hue’s adaptive long-term reference selection mechanism allows for determining whether the long-term reference needs to be updated or not (sect. 3.4), and is therefore deemed relevant given the BRI of the aforementioned limitations. However to more explicitly provide support for determining a coding quality for the long-term reference, the work of Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “obtaining coding quality of the long-term reference frame” [See for e.g. ¶0032 where a quality index can be generated for each analyzed long term reference frame] Given Zhang’s teachings related to high quality AVC encoding (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the high quality long-term look-behind prediction method of Zhang with Hue’s adaptive long-term reference selection to facilitate obtaining an accurate prediction for uncovered objects (e.g. ¶0017 and ¶0029).
Regarding claim 11. Hue and Zhang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue further teaches/suggests “wherein the multimedia data comprises a plurality of multimedia frame groups [See GOPs in fig. 4]; and before the coding a current multimedia frame, the method further comprises: determining a first frame in a multimedia frame group as the long-term reference frame during coding a multimedia frame in the multimedia frame group for the first time [See fig. 4 with reference to sect. 3.4], wherein the first frame is a key frame in the multimedia frame group.” [Given the BRI of “key frame” and recognizing an I frame represents a key frame as per ¶0090 of the specification, Hue’s LTR can be construed as the key frame as suggested in fig. 4]
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. Regarding the claimed hardware and software, please see fig. 2 of Hue for support, where operations of the encoder/decoder as shown require processing driven by program instructions.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. Regarding the claimed hardware and software, please see fig. 2 of Hue for support, where operations of the encoder/decoder as shown require processing driven by program instructions.
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Zhang, and in further view of Yuan et al. US 2023/0262212 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yuan.
Regarding claim 2. Hue and Zhang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the calculating comprises: calculating, based on a coding manner corresponding to the current coded multimedia frame, a target coding cost value of each coding block in the current coded multimedia frame [Given the BRI of a “target coding cost value”, Hue’s SAD metric (sect. 3.4 pgs. 71 and 72) yields a distortion measure (D) for the current coded frame, where SAD is computed for pixels of coding blocks. Although an R-D cost-value is not explicit, this would be within the level of skill in the art based on the foregoing. Please see Yuan below for more explicit support ]; calculating a target coding cost value of the current coded multimedia frame based on a statistical value of the target coding cost value of each coding block [Same citations as above]; and determining the coding quality of the current coded multimedia frame based on the target coding cost value of the current coded multimedia frame [Based on the degree of distortion, a coding quality can be ascertained since distortion and coding quality are inversely related], wherein the target coding cost value of the current coded multimedia frame is in a negative correlation with the coding quality.” [Same as above with respect to the inverse relationship] Although Hue’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the limitations, Hue and Zhang do not explicitly teach a target coding cost value. As such, the work of Yuan from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the foregoing. [Please refer to for e.g. ¶0042 with respect to determining a cost of rate distortion optimization (RDO). Also refer to ¶0066-¶0067 regarding the preset R-D model] Given Yuan’s teachings related to a picture prediction method (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of Yuan with the works of Hue and Zhang related to long-term reference selection so as to achieve a prediction residual error that is relatively small therefore leading to an improved coding efficiency (e.g. ¶0081).
Regarding claim 3. Hue, Zhang, and Yuan teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue and Zhang however do not appear to address the features of claim 3. On the other hand, Yuan from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the calculating a target coding cost value comprises: in a case that precoding is not performed on the current coded multimedia frame in a coding process [¶0192 suggests a pre-coding unit 1203 may or may not be included in the encoder 120. If it is not included, pre-coding will not be implemented], calculating the target coding cost value of the coding block based on an original coding cost value of the coding block [If the pre-coding unit 1203 is not present, any determined target coding cost value corresponding to a target prediction mode will be based on an “original coding cost value”, given its BRI]; or in a case that precoding is performed on the current coded multimedia frame in a coding process [Recognizing the “or” condition above, please see for e.g. ¶0195-¶0197 of Yuan, where pre-coding can be performed to calculate a first rate-distortion cost], calculating the target coding cost value of the coding block based on an original coding cost value of the coding block and a precoding cost value of the coding block.” [According to ¶0195-¶0197, an optimal rate-distortion cost can be determined based on said first rate-distortion cost of the pre-coding and a second rate-distortion cost which can be construed to mean an “original coding cost” given its BRI.] The motivation for combining Hue, Zhang, and Yuan has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Zhang, in further view of Yuan, and in further view of Zhang et al. US 2016/0366414 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang 414.
Regarding claim 4. Hue, Zhang, and Yuan teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue, Zhang, and Yuan however do not appear to address the features of claim 4. On the other hand, Zhang 414 from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the calculating the target coding cost value of the coding block based on an original coding cost value of the coding block comprises: multiplying the original coding cost value of the coding block by a quantizer parameter associated with the coding block, to obtain the target coding cost value of the coding block.” [See for e.g. ¶0028, where the actual coding bit cost (here construed as the original coding cost) is multiplied by a QP (see equation 2) to obtain the estimated coding bit cost, i.e. a target cost] Given the teachings of Zhang 414 related to low-bitrate coding (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the techniques of Zhang 414 with the coding methods of Hue, Zhang, and Yuan in order to achieve low bitrate video coding for real-time streaming services with high subjective video quality (e.g. ¶0002-¶0003).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Claims 6-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Zhang, and in further view of Yu et al. US 2018/0288420 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yu.
Regarding claim 6. Hue and Zhang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue and Zhang however do not appear to address the features of claim 6. On the other hand, Yu from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the determining the type of the current coded multimedia frame comprises: determining a target coding block in the current coded multimedia frame having a motion vector amplitude greater than a preset amplitude based on the motion vector corresponding to the coding block in the current coded multimedia frame; [See for e.g. ¶0055 and ¶0091 with respect to the amplitudes of motion vectors] and determining the type of the current coded multimedia frame based on a quantity of target coding blocks comprised in the current coded multimedia frame.” [Based on the foregoing, a frame may be determined as being static or non-static, which is understood to be a type as per ¶0044 of the specification] Given Yu’s video coding techniques (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the work of Yu with the coding methods of Hue and Zhang in order to adaptively select parameters of a rate estimation model when a video sequence has a lot of noise so that better coding efficiency may be achieved (e.g. ¶0006).
Regarding claim 7. Hue, Zhang, and Yu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue and Zhang however do not appear to address the features of claim 7. On the other hand, Yu from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the determining the target coding block in the current coded multimedia frame comprises: extracting, from the current coded multimedia frame, at least one candidate coding block coded based on an inter-frame prediction mode [Although “extracting” is not explicitly shown, processing and analysis of frames in ¶0091 suggests said frames must have been extracted/parsed from the video sequence]; calculating an amplitude of a motion vector corresponding to the at least one candidate coding block [Please see for e.g. ¶0055, ¶0091 and ¶0105 regarding amplitudes of motion vectors]; and in a case that the amplitude of the motion vector corresponding to the candidate coding block is greater than the preset amplitude, [Same citations as above. If the number of inter blocks of the frame is greater than a threshold T and the average amplitude of motion vectors of the frame horizontally and vertically are less than a threshold t, video encoder 20 may determine that the frame is static. Otherwise the frame is deemed non-static. If so, this suggests the average amplitude of motion vectors of the frame horizontally and vertically can be greater than the threshold t] determining that the at least one candidate coding block belongs to the target coding block.” [This is interpreted to mean the number of inter blocks in the frames of the sequence (e.g. ¶0091)] The motivation for combining Hue, Zhang, and Yu has been discussed in connection with claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 6.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Zhang, and in further view of Cosman et al. US 2006/0098738 A1, hereinafter referred to as Cosman.
Regarding claim 9. Hue and Zhang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue further teaches/suggests “wherein the updating the long-term reference frame comprises: determining a next multimedia frame of the current coded multimedia frame as the updated long-term reference frame [See Sect. 3.4, pg. 71 regarding adaptive long-term reference selection. For e.g. fig. 4 illustrates an example of the long-term reference updating mechanism in which the new long-term reference is updated based on video content analysis]. Hue and Zhang, however, do not appear to address the remaining features of claim 9. On the other hand, Cosman from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “in a case that the current coded multimedia frame is the static multimedia frame [Cosman refers to identifying static portions of frames (e.g. ¶0023, ¶0028, and ¶0031], and the coding quality of the current coded multimedia frame is higher than the coding quality of the long-term reference frame.” [Although Hue’s Sect. 3.4 pg. 72 seems to be relevant, Cosman’s update strategy for long term references (e.g. ¶0050-¶0053) appears to suggest this feature where the long-term reference is taken to be the one having a higher quality (e.g. 0071).] Given Cosman’s video coding techniques (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the work of Cosman with the coding methods of Hue and Zhang in order to obtain a high-quality long-term reference frame occasionally or periodically (e.g. ¶0071).
Regarding claim 13. Hue and Zhang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Hue and Zhang, however, do not appear to address the remaining features of claim 13. On the other hand, Cosman from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the coding a current multimedia frame comprises: obtaining a quantity of short-term reference frames based on a difference between a total quantity of reference frames corresponding to the multimedia data and a quantity of long- term reference frames; determining, as the short-term reference frame, a coded multimedia frame preceding the current multimedia frame, and corresponding to the quantity of the short-term reference frames; and coding the current multimedia frame based on the short-term reference frame and the long-term reference frame.” [See ¶0050-¶0053 regarding both short-term and long-term reference frames] The motivation for combining Hue, Zhang, and Cosman has been discussed in connection with claim 9, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5, 8, 10, 12, 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. Please note, the rejections of claims 5, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above must first be addressed. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
5. The method for coding multimedia data according to claim 3, wherein the calculating the target coding cost value of the coding block based on an original coding cost value of the coding block and a precoding cost value of the coding block comprises: multiplying the original coding cost value of the coding block by the quantizer parameter associated with the coding block, to obtain a candidate coding cost value of the coding block; and performing weighted summation on the candidate coding cost value of the coding block and the precoding cost value of the coding block, to obtain the target coding cost value of the coding block, wherein a weight of the candidate coding cost value is greater than a weight of the precoding cost value.
8. The method for coding multimedia data according to claim 6, wherein the determining the type of the current coded multimedia frame comprises: calculating a ratio of the quantity of target coding blocks in the current coded multimedia frame to a total quantity of coding blocks in the current coded multimedia frame; in a case that the ratio is less than or equal to a preset threshold, determining the current coded multimedia frame as a static multimedia frame; or in a case that the ratio is greater than a preset threshold, determining the current coded multimedia frame as a dynamic multimedia frame.
10. The method for coding multimedia data according to claim 1, wherein the multimedia data comprises a plurality of multimedia frame groups, wherein the updating comprises: performing a zeroing operation on a quantity of current coded frames in a case that the quantity of current coded frames reaches a preset frame quantity; updating the long-term reference frame based on the coding quality of the current coded multimedia frame, the type of the current coded multimedia frame, and the coding quality of the long-term reference frame, wherein the preset frame quantity is an integer and less than a total quantity of multimedia frames in a multimedia frame group having the current multimedia frame, and wherein the multimedia frame group belongs to the plurality of multimedia frame groups in the multimedia data.
12. The method for coding multimedia data according to claim 1, wherein the updating comprises: obtaining a quality weight of the long-term reference frame based on a time interval between the current coded multimedia frame and the long-term reference frame in a case that the long-term reference frame is a key frame, wherein the quality weight is in a negative correlation with the time interval; generating target coding quality of the long-term reference frame based on the quality weight and the coding quality of the long-term reference frame, wherein the target coding quality of the long-term reference frame is lower than the coding quality of the long-term reference frame; and updating the long-term reference frame based on the coding quality of the current coded multimedia frame, the type of the current coded multimedia frame, and the target coding quality of the long-term reference frame.
18. The apparatus for coding multimedia data according to claim 16, wherein the calculating code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to: multiply the original coding cost value of the coding block by the quantizer parameter associated with the coding block, to obtain a candidate coding cost value of the coding block; and perform weighted summation on the candidate coding cost value of the coding block and the precoding cost value of the coding block, to obtain the target coding cost value of the coding block, wherein a weight of the candidate coding cost value is greater than a weight of the precoding cost value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights