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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/29/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, and 18, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-8, 16-17, and 19-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn and said claims are objected/allowed.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US PGPUB 2020/0382806 A1).
As per claim 1, Zhang discloses a method (Zhang, Fig. 2:200) comprising:
receiving a video frame (Zhang, Fig. 2:210); and
responsive to the video frame comprising at least one of a salient object or a region of interest (Zhang, paragraphs 23 and 29, discloses A video partitioner 220 may employ a variety of techniques to select the size and locations of tiles. In one aspect, the video partitioner 220 may work cooperatively with object detection processes to identify likely regions of interest (“ROIs”) in the video content), partitioning the video frame into one or more tiles by defining boundaries of the one or more tiles based on a location of the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest (Zhang, paragraph 29, discloses the video partitioner may define tiles to enclose the ROI(s) detected in the video content, and then use the defined tile size to partition the remainder of the frame. The example of FIGS. 6 and 7 illustrate tile sizes that may be defined based on ROIs.).
As per claim 2, Zhang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving metadata associated with the video frame, the metadata at least indicating the location of the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest in the video frame (Zhang, paragraph 31, discloses The controller 250 may provide metadata in a coded channel bit stream, for example, that defines the number of tiles T1-Tn, the size of the tiles, and their locations within source frames).
As per claim 9, Zhang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
encoding the one or more tiles using one at least one encoding technique (Zhang, Fig. 2:230, and paragraph 31);
inserting the encoded one or more tiles into an encoded bitstream (Zhang, paragraph 31, Fig. 2:230:240); and
transmitting the encoded bitstream to a destination device (Zhang, paragraph 23).
As per claim 10, Zhang discloses a processing device (Zhang, Fig. 2:200) comprising:
a video encoder (Zhang, Fig. 2:200:230, and paragraph 23) configured to:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 11, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 18, Zhang further discloses the processing device of claim 10, further comprising:
a processor (Zhang, paragraph 71); and
a video source configured to generate the video frame (Zhang, Fig. 2:210).
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 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.
Claim(s) 3, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US PGPUB 2020/0382806 A1) and further in view of Kuzyakov (US PGPUB 2018/0302590 A1).
As per claim 3, Zhang further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the Zhang does not explicitly disclose location indicated by the metadata includes pixel coordinates in the video frame.
Kuzyakov discloses location indicated by the metadata includes pixel coordinates in the video frame (Kuzyakov, paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang teachings by implementing embedding module to the system, as taught by Kuzyakov.
The motivation would be to encode salient point at a higher quality (paragraph 54), as taught by Kuzyakov.
As per claim 12, please see the analysis of claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US PGPUB 2020/0382806 A1) and further in view of Dwivedi (US PGPUB 2024/0169686 A1).
As per claim 4, Zhang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Zhang does not explicitly disclose generating, by an inference engine, an output identifying the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest and the location of the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest in the video frame.
Dwivedi discloses generating, by an inference engine, an output identifying the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest and the location of the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest in the video frame (Dwivedi, paragraph 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang teachings by implementing ML inference to the system, as taught by Dwivedi.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system that enable fast and computationally efficient target identification (paragraph 17), as taught by Dwivedi.
As per clam 13, please see the analysis of claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US PGPUB 2020/0382806 A1) and further in view of Dwivedi (US PGPUB 2024/0169686 A1) and further in view of Kuzyakov (US PGPUB 2018/0302590 A1).
As per claim 5, Zhang in view of Dwivedi further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein generating the output further comprises:
identifying at least one of an additional object or a region in the video frame (Zhang, paragraph 29);
Zhang in view of Dwivedi does not explicitly disclose indicating at least one of that the additional object is a non-salient object or that the region is not of interest.
Kuzyakov discloses indicating at least one of that the additional object is a non-salient object or that the region is not of interest (Kuzyakov, paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Dwivedi teachings by implementing saliency module to the system, as taught by Kuzyakov.
The motivation would be to improve dynamic streaming of the content item (paragraph 50), as taught by Kuzyakov.
As per clam 14, please see the analysis of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US PGPUB 2020/0382806 A1) and further in view of Vosoughi (US PGPUB 2020/0107028 A1).
As per claim 6, Zhang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein partitioning the video frame into the one or more tiles comprises:
Zhang does not explicitly disclose partitioning the video frame such that the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest is entirely within a single tile of the one or more tiles.
Vosoughi discloses partitioning the video frame such that the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest is entirely within a single tile of the one or more tiles (Vosoughi, paragraph 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang teachings by implementing compression technique to the system, as taught by Vosoughi.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system where ROI is coded with a higher quality than other parts of the point-cloud (paragraph 35), as taught by Vosoughi.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 6.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 10, is/are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Strong (US PGPUB 2023/0114468 A1).
As per claim 1, Strong discloses a method comprising:
receiving a video frame (Strong, paragraphs 295 and 300, image 7600); and
responsive to the video frame comprising at least one of a salient object or a region of interest (Strong, paragraph 300, discloses a region of interest 7602 within an image 7600 is identified), partitioning the video frame into one or more tiles by defining boundaries of the one or more tiles based on a location of the at least one of the salient object or the region of interest (Strong, paragraph 300, discloses The recursive quadrant algorithm divides the image 7600 into four tiles (as shown in FIG. 76B), and then identifies the top two quadrants/tiles as containing the region of interest. These two tiles are further sub-divided into quadrants/tiles, leaving the bottom two quadrants/tiles untouched (as shown by FIG. 76C). The tiles containing the region of interest are recursively identified and sub-divided in this manner until the region of interest 7602 is exclusively contained within entire tiles (as shown by FIG. 76D)).
As per claim 10, Strong discloses a processing device (Strong, Fig. 35:35000) comprising:
a video encoder (Strong, Fig. 35:3510) configured to:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claims 7-8, and 16-17, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights