DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2025 with respect to pending claims (claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on pages 9-11, filed November 25, 2025, with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amended claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,934,729 B2 (referred as ‘729 patent hereinafter) in view of Kohn et al. (U.S. Pat. No. US 8,493,454 B1, referred as Kohn hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the 729 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 2 of the ‘729 patent discloses a method comprising: determining camera displacement information representative of displacement of a camera associated with an image (see displacement information recited in claim 1 (note: the displacement information is provided from motion sensor associated with the camera, see spec. col, 3 lines 30-37)); encapsulating at least one of a rotation matrix, a quarternion, or an euler angle that specifies the camera displacement information in at least one of a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message or a video usability information (VUI) message (see lines 1-4; (note: the displacement information is specified in terms of rotation matrix, quarternion, euler etc., see spec. col, 3 lines 30-37)); encoding the image and the at least one of the SEI message or the VUI message in a bitstream (see claims 1-2; encoding image and displacement information in bitstream wherein displacement information is embedded in SEI or VUI).
Claim 2 of the ‘729 patent does not teach claim limitation “transmitting the bitstream”.
However, such claim limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Kohn.
Kohn, in the same field of endeavor that of image processing, teaches transmitting the bitstream (see transmission 104 of figure 3 and col. 2 lines 40-56 (OUTPUT BITSTEAM is transmitted by transmission 104); col 7 lines 8-9 (a bitstream received from the transmission 104); and 310 of figure 8 and col. 10 lines 5-8 (bitstream is transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 2 of the ‘729 patent to include Kohn’s transmitter for transmitting the bitstream in order allow data to be delivered faster and displayed on the receiving end.
Regarding instant claim 2, it further recites “wherein: the camera displacement information is based on motion sensor data” (see rejection applied to claim 1 above; also see Kohn, camera 102 of figure 3 and col. 3 lines 30-51 (the motion sensor module 114 measures motion of the camera 102; such motion of camera is the so-called camera displacement information); camera 200 of figure 5 and col. 8 lines 4-25 (the motion sensor module 214 measures motion of the camera 200; such motion of camera is the so-called camera displacement information); 306 of figure 8 and col. 9 lines 58-61 (In the step 306, the motion information recorded from the one or more motion sensors may be used to perform camera motion compensation on the acquired image data)).
Regarding instant claim 3, it further recites “the motion sensor data is collected from at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a magneto sensor” (see Kohn, camera 102 of figure 3 and col. 3 lines 30-51 (the motion sensor 114 comprises one more gyroscopic and/or inertial sensors; camera 200 of figure 5 and col. 8 lines 4-25 (the motion sensor module 214 measures motion of the camera 200 and comprises one or more gyroscopic and/or inertial sensors).
Regarding instant claim 5, it further recites “wherein a stability of the image is based on the camera displacement information” (see Kohn, col. 4 lines 14-35 (Stabilization module 122 performs motion correction; Stabilization module 122 receives motion information from motion sensor 114); col. 6 lines 1-3 (motion information is used to improve image stabilization); co. 8 lines 10-14 (output of motion sensor 214 is used for image stabilization).
Regarding instant claim 6, it further recites “determining a modification of the image based on at least one of a size of a horizontal motion, a size of a vertical motion, a coding efficiency, or an on chip memory” (see Kohn, col. 8 lines 4-15 (motion sensor module 214 measures rotation around horizontal and vertical axes; these measurements refer to horizontal motion and vertical motion); col. 9 lines 31-46 (motion sensor module 114 measures horizontal and vertical motion); col. 2 lines 57-65 (encoding schemes described in this passage inherently include coding efficiency); col. 2 lines 40-51 (storage medium 104, memory devices, FLASH; these refer to on chip memory)); and applying the modification to the image (as pointed above, using motion information for image stabilization; using encoding schemes for image to obtain output bitstream; and using memory for storing output bitstream).
Regarding instant claim 7, it further recites “wherein: the modification includes at least one of a rotation or a flip of the image” (see Kohn, col. 8 lines 4-15 (motion sensor module 214 measures rotation around horizontal and vertical axes); col. 1 lines 18-19 (rotation around horizontal and vertical axes is measured by two gyroscopic sensors (gyroscopic sensor is the motion sensor as pointed out above)).
Regarding instant claim 11, the advanced statements as applied to instant claim 1 are incorporated hereinafter. The combination claim 6 of the ‘729 patent and Kohn further teaches claim medium (see lines 1-2 of patented claim 6; and Kohn, figure 3 (system 100 comprising transmitter 104 for transmitting output bitstream); col. 10 lines 36-67 (software from medium executed by processors; medium including instructions that is used to program a machine to perform processes or method of Kohn’s invention)).
Regarding instant claim 12, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding instant claim 13, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding instant claim 15, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 5 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding instant claim 16, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 6 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding instant claim 17, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 7 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,934,729 B2 (referred as ‘729 patent hereinafter)in view of Kohn, and further in view of Verma et al. (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0149030 Al, referred as Verma hereinafter).
The advanced statements set forth in the preceding paragraph 6 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding instant claim 3, the combination of claims of the ‘729 patent and Kohn do not specifically teach claim limitation “the motion sensor data is collected from a magneto sensor”.
However, such claim limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Verma.
Verma, in the field of endeavor that of motion determination, teaches that the motion sensor data is collected from a magneto sensor (see para. [0042] (motion detector 106 is a magneto motion detector).
The motivation for doing so is to reduce cost as suggested by Verma (see para. [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claims 1 and 11 of the ‘729 patent in combination with Kohn to include Verma’s magneto motion detector for that reasons.
Instant claim 13 recites similar claim limitation called for in the instant claim 3 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 8-10, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,934,729 B2 (referred as ‘729 patent hereinafter) in view of Kohn, and further view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2009/0232211 Al, referred as Chen hereinafter).
The advanced statements set forth in the preceding paragraph 6 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding instant claim 8, the combination of claims of the ‘729 patent and Kohn do not specifically teach claim limitations “determining an adaptive scan order based on one of a size of a horizontal motion, a size of a vertical motion, a coding efficiency, and an on-chip memory; and applying the adaptive scan order to a frame of the image”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and widely used as evidenced by Chen.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor that of image encoding, teaches an image encoder (see figure 1 and para. [0034] (an image encoding apparatus) comprising:
determining an adaptive scan order based on one of a size of a horizontal motion, a size of a vertical motion, a coding efficiency, or an on-chip memory (see figure 13, scan order determining unit 122 which is a part of prediction unit 12 of figure 1; paras. [0051] –[0054] (scanning in the horizontal direction and vertical direction); figure 5A (size of the horizontal direction is 4 pixels a0 to a3, for example); figure 5B (size of the vertical direction is 4 pixels b0, b4, b8 and b12, for example); abstract (the precision of intra prediction is improved thus increasing the quality of the image so intra prediction employing scan order is based on the coding efficiency); para. [0088] (memory is used to store program for computer to execute the encoding functions which includes the scanning order)); and applying the adaptive scan order to the image (see figure 3: scan order is applied to current picture by scan order determining unit 122).
The motivation for doing so is to improve encoding (see Chen, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claims of the ‘729 patent in combination with Kohn to include such claim limitations as taught by Chen for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 9, the combination of claims of the ‘729 patent, Kohn and Chen teaches the adaptive scan order includes at least one of:
horizontal top-left to right (see Chen, figure 5A, a0 to a3);
horizontal top-right to left (see Chen, figure 5A, a3 to a4);
horizontal bottom-left to right (see Chen, figure 5A, a4 to a7, a12 to a15);
horizontal bottom-right to left (see Chen, figure 5A, a11 to a12);
vertical left-top to bottom (see Chen, figure 5B, “b0, b4, b8 and b12”);
vertical top-left to bottom (see Chen, figure 5B, “b0, b4, b8 and b12”);
vertical top-right to bottom (see Chen, figure 5B, “b3, b7, b11 and b15”);
vertical bottom-left to top (see Chen, figure 5B, “b12 to b1”); or
vertical bottom-right to top (see Chen, figure 5B, “b14 to b3”).
Regarding instant claim 10, claim 6 of the ‘729 patent teaches, Kohn and Chen teach encoding the adaptive scan order in the bitstream (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 18, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the instant claim 8 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding instant claim 19, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the instant claim 9 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding instant claim 20, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the instant claim 10 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohn in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 21 a representative claim Kohn discloses a device comprising:
a camera configurable to capture a video (see camera 102 of figure 3);
an encoder coupled to the camera and configurable to (see figure 1 and col. 4 lines 36-59: image processing and control unit 120 performs encoding; 150 of figure 4 and col. 6 line 52 – col. 7 line 43 (150 is implemented as a camera; 150 is configured to use camera motion information)) and a transmitter coupled to the encoder and configurable to transmit the bitstream (see figure 1 and col. 2 lines 43-54 (transmitter 104); 104 of figure 4)).
Kohn does not teach claim limitations “determine an adaptive scan order based on motion estimated from frames of the video; encode a frame of the video in a bitstream based on the adaptive scan order; and encode the adaptive scan order in the bitstream”.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art as evidenced by Chen.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor that of image encoding, teaches an encoder (see figure 1 and paras. [0034] – [0041] (encoding apparatus)) comprising determine an adaptive scan order based on motion estimated from frames of the video, encode a frame of the video in a bitstream based on the adaptive scan order, and encode the adaptive scan order in the bitstream (see paras. [0052] and [0063] (the order of adaptive scanning); item 122 of figure 3 (it is a scan order determining unit which is a part of the Intra Prediction Unit 12 of figure 1); paras.[0051] - [0054] (“the scan order determining unit 122 adaptively determines the order of scanning ... determine scanning to be performed in the horizontal direction or vertical direction”. This scan order information is included in the encoded bitstream)). And the encoded bitstream is transmitted to the receiving end (see para. [0072] – [0073]).
The motivation for doing so is to enhance data transmission and thereby improve image/video quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kohn to include Chen for that reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Kohn further teaches a motion sensor configurable to sense a displacement of the camera (see camera 102 of figure 3 and col. 3 lines 30-51 (the motion sensor module 114 measures motion of the camera 102; such motion of camera is the so-called camera displacement information); camera 200 of figure 5 and col. 8 lines 4-25 (the motion sensor module 214 measures motion of the camera 200; such motion of camera is the so-called camera displacement information); 306 of figure 8 and col. 9 lines 58-61 (In the step 306, the motion information recorded from the one or more motion sensors may be used to perform camera motion compensation on the acquired image data); and 404 of figure 9 and col. 10 lines 18-20 (In step 404, the information about the motion of the camera may be used to correct distortion in the image data)),
wherein the encoder is coupled to the motion sensor and configurable to encode the camera displacement representative of the displacement of the camera in the bitstream (see camera 102 of figure 3, col. 2 lines 57-65 (The camera 102 may have an output that may present an output signal (e.g., OUTPUT BITSTREAM). The signal OUTPUT BITSTREAM may comprise both image data acquired by the camera 102 and information about the motion of the camera 102 while the image data was being acquired. The camera 102 may be configured to encode the image data and/or motion information using one or more standard or proprietary compression schemes (e.g., JPEG, MPEG, H.263, H.264, etc.)) and col. 3 last 4 lines (The image processing and control module 116 produces the signal OUTPUT BITSTREAM containing both image data and information about the motion of the camera 102); camera 200 of figure 5 and col. 8 lines 54-67 (OUTPUT BITREAM; encoding schemes used to produce OUTPUT BITSTREAM by the image processing and control unit 216); 308 of figure 8 and col. 9 line 62 to col. 10 line 5 (image data and motion information are encoded into bitstream)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
2/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662