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 28 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner considers whether 112(f) is invoked for claim 10. Namely, the claims refer to a “processing circuitry configured to:”. Review of this language notes that claimed video coder
circuit is a structural term and relates hardware, meaning that the claimed video coder circuity does not
invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The limitations were also reviewed for single means claiming. A single means claim which
covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose is held nonenabling for the scope of
the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor.
However, upon review of the specification, ¶58 describes “a “processor” or “processing circuitry” may for example be any combination of one or more of a suitable central processing unit (CPU), multiprocessor, microcontroller (μC), digital signal processor (DSP), application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), field-programmable gate-array (FPGA), graphics processing unit (GPU), etc., capable of executing software instructions stored in the memory 612”. This description provides enough support to avoid rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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) 1,5-8,10,12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu; Yuefeng et al. (US 20170318308 A1) in view of Vadapalli; Sarat Chandra et al. (US 20110080952 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches
A method for intra refresh encoding of a video stream, (Title, “INTRA-REFRESH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY, LOW-DELAY VIDEO CODING”) wherein the method comprises:
encoding the video stream using a first intra refresh pattern; (¶11,13, and fig. 1, video encoding sub-system that conventionally “renders and encodes pictures a VR or AR video stream” in a “conventional intra-refresh encoding” scheme)
determining that a time-variation of the video stream, (¶25, “determines from the global motion estimate whether to implement the conventional intra-refresh mode or the motion-adaptive intra-refresh mode”) a second intra refresh pattern different from the first intra refresh pattern (¶25, “conventional intra-refresh mode or the motion-adaptive intra-refresh mode”) and
in response to said determining, (¶29-30, compared the magnitude of this representation) switching to encoding the video stream using the second intra refresh pattern. (¶29-30, compares the magnitude of this representation of the global motion to “switch modes” to the “motion-adaptive intra-refresh coding mode” when magnitude of the global motion estimate exceeds the threshold)
But does not explicitly teach,
determining that a time-variation of bits-per-frame for encoding the video stream using a second intra refresh pattern is lower than that for encoding the video stream using the first intra refresh pattern,
However, Vadapalli teaches additionally,
determining that a time-variation of bits-per-frame for encoding the video stream using a second intra refresh pattern (¶36-40 and fig. 2, “function of the sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at a second of “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”) different from the first intra refresh pattern (¶36-40 and fig. 2, “function of the sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at a first of “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”) is lower than that for encoding the video stream using the first intra refresh pattern, (¶42 and 38-40, optimal intra-refresh rate selection (RRS) which adaptively “sets an intra-refresh rate for each frame that minimizes end-to-end distortion” under a rate constraint selected from “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”)
Vadapalli is important for teaching a determination of intra refresh as an evaluation of multiple refresh rates associated with the coding for video frames. The prior art evaluates their total computed distortion and evaluates the optimal rate to code the video frames, finding the intra refresh that is the best for the video frame. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-refresh of Lu with the adaptive intra refresh rate setting of Vadapalli which selects an intra refresh based on rate values. Using this teaching uses a technique that minimizes end-to-end distortion.
Regarding claim 5, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Vadapalli teaches additionally,
the time-variation of bits-per-frame (¶20, “sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames ) is defined in terms of a bits-per-frame variance, (¶20, sum of the corresponding computed “channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames) bits-per-frame standard deviation and/or bits-per-frame oscillation amplitude.
Regarding claim 6, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Vadapalli teaches additionally,
the first and second intra refresh patterns (¶36-40 and fig. 2, a first and second of “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”) form part of a plurality of different intra refresh patterns, (¶36-40 and fig. 2, “sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”) determining comprises evaluating the resulting time-variation of bits-per-frame for each intra refresh pattern (¶36-40,42, and fig. 2, “function of the sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at a first and a second of “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame” so that optimal intra-refresh rate selection (RRS) which adaptively “sets an intra-refresh rate for each frame that minimizes end-to-end distortion” under a rate constraint selected from “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”) of said plurality of intra refresh patterns. (¶36-40 and fig. 2, “function of the sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”)
Regarding claim 7, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 6,
Vadapalli teaches additionally,
second intra refresh pattern is determined to be the intra refresh pattern (¶36-40, second “intra refresh rate value” of the “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame” selected as a function of distortion values) out of the plurality of different intra refresh patterns (¶36-43, “multiple refresh rates” that included the selected intra refresh rate value) that has a smallest time-variation of bits-per-frame for encoding the video stream. (¶42-43, “optimal intra-refresh rate selection (RRS)” sets an “intra-refresh rate for each frame that minimizes end-to-end distortion” for optimally trading off coding efficiency (CE) “for error resilience (ER)”)
Regarding claim 8, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Lu teaches additionally,
determining and switching is performed in response to detecting that the time-variation of bits-per-frame for encoding (¶29, global motion estimate and “compares the magnitude of this representation of the global motion to a specified threshold” to “switch modes to the motion-adaptive intra-refresh coding mode”) the video stream using the first intra refresh pattern (¶27 and 29, global motion estimate for “the current picture iteration”) exceeds a threshold value. (¶29, “compares the magnitude of this representation of the global motion to a specified threshold”)
Regarding claim 10, it is the device claim of method claim 1.
Lu teaches additionally,
A device, comprising processing circuitry (¶23,33, and fig. 3, “video processing system 100 includes a video generation sub-system 302” which includes mode control 312 and encoder 314 as depicted in fig. 3 implemented by “one or more processors of a processing system executing software”) configured to:
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to understand the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 10,
Lu teaches additionally,
the device is a body-worn camera or a drone camera. (¶23 and fig. 3, “video processing system 100 includes” a video generation sub-system 302 used with “a HMD device 304” depicted in fig. 3)
Regarding claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of method claim 1.
Lu teaches additionally,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program comprising computer code (¶23,33, and fig. 3, “executable instructions stored or otherwise tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” executed by one or more processors) that, when run on processing circuitry of a device, causes the device to: (¶23,33, and fig. 3, “video processing system 100 includes a video generation sub-system 302” which includes mode control 312 and encoder 314 as depicted in fig. 3 implemented by “one or more processors of a processing system executing software”)
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to understand the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 13,
Lu teaches additionally,
A computer program product, (¶23,33, and fig. 3, “executable instructions stored or otherwise” executed by one or more processors “of a processor system executing software”) comprising the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. (¶23,33, and fig. 3, executable instructions stored or otherwise tangibly embodied “on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”)
Claim(s) 2,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu; Yuefeng et al. (US 20170318308 A1) in view of Vadapalli; Sarat Chandra et al. (US 20110080952 A1) in view of Edpalm; Viktor et al. (US 20200169727 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 2,
However, Edpalm teaches additionally,
first and second intra refresh patterns (¶64-67 and fig. 1, “intra refresh pattern cycles” 100a and 100b depicted in fig. 1) are a horizontal intra refresh pattern and a vertical intra refresh pattern, respectively, or vice versa. (¶64-67 and fig. 1, “intra refresh pattern cycles over a larger plurality of image frame” which includes patterns such as “intra refresh pattern 100a is shown where complete rows of macroblocks in the image frame defines an intra refresh region” and “intra refresh pattern 100b is shown where complete column(s) of macroblocks in the image frame defines an intra refresh region” as depicted in fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-refresh of Lu with the adaptive intra refresh rate setting of Vadapalli with the intra refresh patterns of Edpalm which discloses specific intra refresh patterns. Using the patterns in Edpalm can reduce the bitrate penalty for intra refresh encoding.
Regarding claim 11, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 10,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 11,
However, Edpalm teaches additionally,
the device is a monitoring camera. (¶63 and 86, encoder “using intra-encoding” forming part of a “video capturing device, such as a monitoring camera”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-refresh of Lu with the adaptive intra refresh rate setting of Vadapalli with the intra-encoding of Edpalm which is part of a monitoring camera. Performing encoding in this way for a camera can be used to reduce computational complexity.
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu; Yuefeng et al. (US 20170318308 A1) in view of Vadapalli; Sarat Chandra et al. (US 20110080952 A1) in view of Gamei; James Alexander et al. (US 20130128958 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 3,
However, Gamei teaches additionally,
first and second intra refresh patterns (¶122 and fig.21-22, “a horizontal hybrid zig scanning order” depicted in fig. 21 and “a vertical hybrid zig scanning order” depicted in fig. 22) are two opposite diagonal intra refresh patterns. (¶122 and fig.21-22, “scan patterns in which the diagonal scanning motion is first in one diagonal direction” as depicted in fig. 21, “then in the opposite diagonal direction” as depicted in fig. 22 where patterns are arranged so that data is reordered to sets of a “constant horizontal spatial frequency or a constant vertical spatial frequency”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-refresh of Lu with the adaptive intra refresh rate setting of Vadapalli with the scan ordering of Gamei which reorders the zig-zag scanning patterns. This allows for a frequency component to be generally constant for coefficients within a subset.
Claim(s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu; Yuefeng et al. (US 20170318308 A1) in view of Vadapalli; Sarat Chandra et al. (US 20110080952 A1) in view of FILIPPOV; Alexey Konstantinovich et al. (US 20190020881 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 4,
However, Filippov teaches additionally,
first and second intra refresh patterns (¶182, “pre-defined scan orders” for a block) are two orthogonal intra refresh patterns. (¶182, “pre-defined scan orders may be selected to be orthogonal to the intra-mode directionality” of the planar intra modes)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-refresh of Lu with the adaptive intra refresh rate setting of Vadapalli with the scan order list of Filippov which selects scan orders that are orthogonal to the intra-mode directionality. The right scan order can improve rate-distortion efficiency by selecting the scan order using different coding features at the TU level.
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu; Yuefeng et al. (US 20170318308 A1) in view of Vadapalli; Sarat Chandra et al. (US 20110080952 A1) in view of Fan; Xing Danielsson et al. (US 20160142705 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Lu with Vadapalli teaches the limitations of claim 8,
However, Vadapalli teaches additionally,
determining comprises evaluating, in response to said detecting, the time-variation of bits-per-frame for each of the first and second intra refresh patterns (¶71 and 36-40, computing “distortion estimates over the window of W frames at their corresponding effective intra refresh rate values” that is part of “sum of the corresponding computed” channel distortion including “source coding distortion values” over W frames) during one or more finite time intervals, (¶71-73, W frames that can be interpreted as “effective instantaneous refresh period”) wherein said determining is performed by detecting that the time-variation of bits-per-frame for the second intra refresh pattern (¶36-40 and fig. 2, “function of the sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at a second of “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”) is lower than (¶42 and 38-40, optimal intra-refresh rate selection (RRS) which adaptively “sets an intra-refresh rate for each frame that minimizes end-to-end distortion” under a rate constraint selected from “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame” which includes a first and second refresh rate) that for the first intra refresh pattern (¶36-40 and fig. 2, “function of the sum of the corresponding computed channel induced distortion values and the source coding distortion values” for one or more video frames at a first of “multiple refresh rates for the coded video frame”)
But does not explicitly teach,
wherein said determining is performed by detecting that the time-variation of bits-per-frame during at least one of said one or more finite time intervals.
However, Fan teaches additionally,
first and second intra refresh patterns during one or more finite time intervals, (¶72, “groups of neighboring pixels in a first sequence of image frames on a short term basis to form a first accumulation or short term accumulation” and “groups of neighboring pixels in a second sequence of image frames on a long term basis to form a second accumulation or long term accumulation”) and wherein said determining is performed by detecting that the time-variation of bits-per-frame (¶72-73, “local change value module 28 arranged to calculate a local change value for each group of neighboring pixels in image frames based on a difference between corresponding accumulated group values of the first and second accumulations”) for the second intra refresh pattern and that for the first intra refresh pattern (¶72, “ comparing module 25 arranged to compare accumulated group values of the first and second accumulations”) during at least one of said one or more finite time intervals. (¶72, first sequence of image frames of a first “short term accumulation” and second sequence of image frames of a second “long term accumulation” used in calculating a local change value “difference between corresponding accumulated group values of the first and second accumulations”)
Fan here is relied upon to teach calculation and analysis of two accumulations of image frames with different accumulation terms. Fan analyzes the accumulated groups for differences to calculate local change values. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-refresh of Lu with the adaptive intra refresh rate setting of Vadapalli with the encoder of Fan which accumulates a first and second accumulation of image frames. This process allows for reducing the bit rate when encoding images of a static scene by using less frequent intra-frames and encoding scenes with motion with more frequent intra-frames, which reduces encoding artifacts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
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 G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
