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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2025 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.
Here, applicant generally claims that Stolt merely performs the operations of the encoder (Remarks of August 5, 2025, page 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner argues that you have to look no further than the abstract of the prior art that indicates that the invention is related to an encoder and decoder. Further, it is implied by Stolt that the encoder and decoder performs similar operations to obtain desired result. The applicant does not appear to make an argument against a specific claim element but only argues that the claimed invention is an decoder and Stolt is teaching an encoder, which the examiner respectfully disagrees based on the stated reasons. Thus, the examiner believes a final is appropriate at this stage of patent prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 – 9, 11- 16, and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stolt (US 2017/0359589).
As per claim 1, Stolt discloses a method implemented by a receiving computing device (Figure 6), the method comprising:
receiving video frames of different resolutions in a video sequence from a sending computing device (¶ 37), the video frames of different resolutions comprising inter-coded frames of different resolutions, wherein receiving the video frames of the different resolutions in the video sequence comprises:
receiving encoded data representing a first frame of a first resolution; and
after receiving the video frames of different resolutions in the video sequence (¶ 64);
comparing the first resolution of the first frame with a second resolution of a second frame (¶ 48) stored in a reference frame buffer of the receiving computing device;
determining predictors associated with the second frame based on the first resolution and the second resolution, wherein a rescaling operation is performed in the second frame based on a result of the comparing (¶ 175 and 176);
decoding the encoded data to obtain the first frame based at least in part on the predictors; and
storing the first frame in the reference frame buffer (¶ 65 and 174; The another frame (or frames) that is scaled to provide the scaled reference frame for encoding the new, changed resolution source frame should be appropriately stored (e.g. buffered) for the purposes of being scaled to provide the scaled copy reference frame.).
As per claim 3, Stolt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second frame is a frame of the video sequence received immediately prior to the first frame (¶ 60; In one embodiment the frame used for the scaled reference frame is the immediately preceding source frame).
As per claim 4, Stolt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising resizing the first frame for display (¶ 37; The transmitted sequence of encoded frames is then decoded (e.g. using decoding processing circuitry) to provide output video image data for the sequence of frames, e.g. for display.).
As per claim 6, Stolt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the video frames of the different resolutions in the video sequence further comprises: receiving other encoded data representing a third frame of a third resolution; and the method further comprises: decoding the other encoded data to obtain the third frame based at least on the first frame (¶ 62; It would also be possible to encode (and correspondingly decode) the new, “changed resolution” source frame with reference to plural other frames in the sequence of source frames (e.g. a previous and a future frame in the sequence of source frames), when desired.).
As per claim 7, Stolt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining information of the first resolution of the first frame based at least in part on a particular parameter associated with the first frame (¶ 52).
As per claim 8, Stolt discloses the method of claim 7, wherein obtaining the information of the first resolution of the first frame is further based on another particular parameter associated with the video sequence of a video sequence including the first frame (¶ 52).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 11 – 16, and 18 - 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, 3, 4 and 6 - 8 are applicable for claim(s) 9 and 11 – 16, and 18 - 20.
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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487