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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4 line 6, “wherein in the” appears to be a typo and should apparently be “wherein the”
In Claim 17 line 2, “comprises a image” appears to be a typo and should apparently be “comprises an image”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9-10, 13-14, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., US Pub. 11553224 B1 (hereinafter Zhou) in view of Roeder, US Pub. 11917327 B2 (hereinafter Roeder).
In regards to Claim 1, Zhou discloses a live stream data processing method, comprising: detecting a current performance parameter of a live streaming device during a process of the live streaming device recording live stream data (Zhou: Col. 4, lines 63-65, where a parameter of a network used by an anchor terminal for transmitting live streaming data is acquired). However, Zhou fails to explicitly disclose determining image quality enhancement information for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter, and performing image quality enhancement on the live stream data based on the image quality enhancement information; and determining a stream ingestion bitrate based on the target image quality enhancement information, and pushing, to a server according to the stream ingestion bitrate, the live stream data subjected to the image quality enhancement.
Roeder from a similar endeavor teaches determining image quality enhancement information for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter (Roeder: Col. 4, lines 40-41, where a video quality assessor 190 generates a video quality assessment or score), and performing image quality enhancement on the live stream data based on the image quality enhancement information (Roeder: Fig. 3 and Col. 5, lines 9-16, where if the segment fails to meet the pre-defined threshold, the dynamic resolution manager 191 can encode the segment at a lower resolution where the lower resolution segment is less compressed and has fewer artifacts. This can provide a tradeoff where the lower resolution with fewer artifacts caused by compression is a better viewer experience than a higher resolution video segment with more artifacts); and determining a stream ingestion bitrate based on the target image quality enhancement information (Roeder: Col. 5, lines 16-18, where the dynamic resolution manager 191 can manage the overall bitrate of the video stream being adjusted), and pushing, to a server according to the stream ingestion bitrate, the live stream data subjected to the image quality enhancement (Roeder: Fig. 3A element 159; Col. 9, lines 7-8, where when changes in video quality are detected, the dynamic resolution manager 191 can initiate mitigation; Col. 12, lines 37-38, where the video segment can be published 159 and distributed via the CDN 174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou in view of Roeder such that the live stream performance parameters disclosed by Zhou would include Roeder’s method of image quality enhancement. This combination yields the predictable result of enhancing the live stream image data based on the stream’s performance and matching the bitrate reduction to the enhancement level so that the viewer does not lose perceived image quality.
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the image quality enhancement information comprises an image quality enhancement level (Roeder: Col. 4, lines 40-41, where a video quality assessor 190 generates a video quality assessment or score; Fig. 3 and Col. 5, lines 1-3, where the dynamic resolution manager 191, as describe further in relation to FIG. 3 determines whether the quality of the segments of each video channel meet a threshold level).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the determining image quality enhancement information for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter, the method further comprises: determining whether a current live streaming mode is a live streaming mode; and the determining image quality enhancement information for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter comprises: determining the image quality enhancement information for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter if it is determined that the current live streaming mode is not the live streaming mode. (Roeder Fig. 4 and Col. 13-14, lines 62-67 and 1-8, where a check can be made whether the downstream devices and network support dynamic resolution switching (Block 403)… the dynamic resolution manager is able to poll downstream devices for support…if downstream devices do not support the dynamic resolution switching process, then the higher resolution encoding of the current segment can be published for the video channel. If the check is not performed or where the downstream components do support the dynamic resolution management, then the dynamic resolution manager can proceed to determine whether the received video quality assessment score meets a pre-determined quality threshold (Block 405)). Block 403 describes checking whether downstream devices/network support dynamic resolution switching before proceeding, and only when that support exists does the manager go on to compare the quality score against the threshold.
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: if it is determined that the current live streaming mode is the live streaming mode, stopping determining the image quality enhancement information for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter, and pushing to the server the live stream data with the initial image quality and at the initial stream ingestion bitrate. (Roeder Fig. 4, Block 403). Block 403 describes that when downstream support doesn’t exist, the current segment’s original higher-resolution encoding is published as it is initially.
In regards to Claim 13, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions (Roeder: Col. 15, lines 53-54, where the system 500 includes a processor 501, memory 503; Col. 16, lines 15-18, where the memory 503 may store information including…executable code); and the at least one processor executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (Roeder: Col. 16, lines 15-17, where the memory 503 may store information including sequences of instructions that are executed by the processor 501), so that the at least one processor performs all of the claimed limitations (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
In regards to Claim 14, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (Zhou: Col. 2, lines 7-11, where a fourth aspect of embodiments of the present disclosure provides a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon that, when being executed by a processor of an electronic device, causes the electronic device to…), cause the processor to implement all of the claimed limitations (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 17, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the device according to claim 13, wherein the image quality enhancement information comprises a image quality enhancement level (see rejection of Claim 2 above).
Regarding Claim 21, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the medium according to claim 14, wherein the image quality enhancement information comprises an image quality enhancement level (see rejection of Claim 2 above).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Roeder, and further in view of van der Schaar et al., US Pub. 9866878 B2 (hereinafter van der Schaar).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determining an image quality enhancement level for the live stream data based on the current performance parameter comprises: determining the image quality enhancement level corresponding to the current performance parameter based on a mapping relationship between preset performance parameters and image quality enhancement levels. van der Schaar from a similar endeavor, in combination with Zhou and Roeder, teaches determining the image quality enhancement level corresponding to the current performance parameter based on a mapping relationship between preset performance parameters and image quality enhancement levels (Zhou: Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 63-65, where a parameter of a network used by an anchor terminal for transmitting live streaming data is acquired; Roeder: Fig. 4 and Col. 14, lines 5-8, where the dynamic resolution manager can proceed to determine whether the received video quality assessment score meets a pre-determined quality threshold (Block 405); van der Schaar: Col. 20, lines 47-51, where in an adaptive bitrate context, the process may decide to stream at the base rate based on the given streaming conditions of the network such as the bandwidth available or the CPU capacity of the device for processing the video frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou and Roeder in view of van der Schaar such that the performance parameter disclosed by Zhou and the enhancement level disclosed by Roeder would include van der Schaar’s method of determining the level from the network/performance parameters. This yields the predictable result of an enhancement level determined directly from a detected performance parameter.
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teaching of Zhou, Roeder, and van der Schaar discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the current performance parameter comprises at least two performance parameters; and the mapping relationship between performance parameters and image quality enhancement levels comprises preset ranges for each performance parameter corresponding to the image quality enhancement levels (van der Schaar: Col. 20, lines 47-51, where in an adaptive bitrate context, the process may decide to stream at the base rate based on the given streaming conditions of the network such as the bandwidth available or the CPU capacity of the device for processing the video frames). van der Schaar discloses that the enhanced (enhancement layer) stream is used when network bandwidth is sufficient to support the required bitrate and/or the CPU has capacity to process the enhanced rate, and that the base layer is used when bandwidth is insufficient and/or CPU is lacking. These are two distinct performance parameters, each checked against their own sufficiency criterion/preset ranges.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Roeder, and further in view of Smith et al., US Pub. 2018/0295175 A1 (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teaching of Zhou and Roeder discloses the method according to claim 9, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the live streaming mode comprises a live streaming mode in which a plurality of users co-stream. Smith from a similar endeavor teaches a live streaming mode in which a plurality of users co-stream (Smith: [0005], where technologies are described for enabling co-streaming within a live…streaming service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou and Roeder in view of Smith because they all relate to live-streaming. Smith identifies a live streaming mode in which a plurality of users co-stream, which would require different bitrate treatment as disclosed by Zhou and Roeder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, 18-20, and 22-23 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:
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of prior arts does not teach or suggest the at least claimed “determining a stream ingestion bitrate reduction extent based on the image quality enhancement level; and determining the stream ingestion bitrate based on an initial stream ingestion bitrate for the live stream data and the stream ingestion bitrate reduction extent,” in combination with the other recited claim features
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of prior arts does not teach or suggest the at least claimed “determining the stream ingestion bitrate reduction extent corresponding to the image quality enhancement level according to a mapping relationship between preset image quality enhancement levels and stream ingestion bitrate reduction extents, wherein in the mapping relationship between the image quality enhancement levels and the stream ingestion bitrate reduction extents, the higher the image quality enhancement level is, the larger the corresponding stream ingestion bitrate reduction extent is,” in combination with the other recited claim features
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of prior arts does not teach or suggest the at least claimed “obtaining a plurality of image qualities respectively corresponding to the preset image quality enhancement levels at different stream ingestion bitrate reduction extents; and comparing the plurality of image qualities with an original image quality to determine, as a stream ingestion bitrate reduction extent corresponding to the preset image quality enhancement level, a stream ingestion bitrate reduction extent corresponding to an image quality commensurate with the original image quality, and establishing a mapping relationship between image quality enhancement levels and stream ingestion bitrate reduction extents,” in combination with the other recited claim features
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of prior arts does not teach or suggest the at least claimed “if at least one performance parameter in the current performance parameter is within a preset range for the performance parameter corresponding to an image quality enhancement level and none of the performance parameters in the current performance parameter exceeds an upper limit of a preset range for each performance parameter corresponding to the image quality enhancement level,” in combination with the other recited claim features
Regarding Claims 18 and 22:
Claims 18 and 22 are found allowable for at least the same reasons as discussed in Claim 3 above
Regarding Claim 19 and 23:
Claims 19 and 23 are found allowable for at least the same reasons as discussed in Claim 4 above
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is found allowable for at least the same reasons as discussed in Claim 5 above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bar Bracha et al., US Pub. 9591316 B2 teach associating perceived video quality levels with corresponding encoding parameters, and adapting the encoding rate when changing between quality levels
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/HANNA CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2421 /NATHAN J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights