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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Applicant’s submission filed on May 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed May 1, 2026 appears to claim device being display is a very minor amendment and has been addressed here. Additionally, as per Board Decision of February 27, 2026, examiner has been affirmed rejections of claims 1-24 as being obvious under 35 USC 103 as well rejection of claim 1 under non-statutory double patenting. Applicant is advised to refer to the Board Decision and other previous correspondence for further details.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,750,811 (Patent ‘811). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1 of the instant application are broader than claim 1 of Patent ‘811, as shown in the following table – see 214 U.S.P.Q. 761 In re Van Ornum and Stanz.
Application 18/353,580
Claim 1. A method, comprising: receiving video content; receiving, from a device configured for output of video, a viewing parameter associated with output of the video content; generating, based on the viewing parameter and pixel data associated with the video content, a quantization matrix associated with the video content; and encoding, based at least in part on the quantization matrix, at least a portion of the video content.
Patent ‘811
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving video content comprising a plurality of frames; receiving, from a device configured for output of video, a viewing parameter associated with output of the video content; determining one or more of luminance pixel data associated with a frame of the plurality of frames or chrominance pixel data associated with the frame; determining, based on the viewing parameter and the one or more of luminance pixel data or chrominance pixel data, a first quantization matrix associated with the frame; and encoding, based at least in part on the first quantization matrix, at least a portion of the video content.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosewarne et al., US 2017/0155903 A1 (Rosewarne) view of Zhang et al., US 2015/0264364 A1 (Zhang).
Examiner’s Note: The claimed invention makes references to “viewing parameters”. The specification, published as US 2023/0362377 A1 (Specification) defines “viewing parameters” broadly as parameters “relating to the viewing experience may influence the viewer's ability to perceive certain video data” – see par. 13 of Specification. Accordingly, “viewing parameters” in the claims will be broadly interpreted as any one or more parameters that may influence how the viewer perceives the video. Human Visual System (HVS) model, which explores limitations of human vision system to distinguish spatial, temporal, luminance, and chrominance changes in video, is widely used in image and video processing, and video coding and decoding. Terms such as Just Noticeable Difference or Just Noticeable Distortion (JND) are used in this context. Ideally, a video encoder only allocates bits for signaling portions of the video for which the distortion is greater than or equal to JND because the HVS is incapable of perceiving video that has a higher degree of accuracy than JND. This is achieved by adjusting quantization parameter and also ignoring the high-frequency temporal as well as high-frequency spatial components of quantization coefficients that reside in the lower right-hand-side of the quantization matrix.
With respect to claim 1, Rosewarne discloses a method [abstract], comprising: receiving video content [FIG. 6, frame data 130]; receiving, from a display device [0020] configured for output of video, a viewing parameter associated with output of the video content [FIG. 6, luminance measure 136, par. 78: “The quantiser control module 646 receives the luminance measure 136 from the luminance measurer 116” where “luminance” is a viewing parameter and “luminance measurer 116” is a device]; generating, based on the viewing parameter and pixel data associated with the video content, a quantization matrix associated with the video content [par. 78: “The quantiser control module 646 receives the luminance measure 136 from the luminance measurer 116 and determines an adjustment (if needed) to the quantisation parameter as described with reference to FIG. 10”, see also FIG. 7, par. 96: “adjustment of the quantisation parameter (QP) 684, via the Quantcoeff 706 results on adjusting one or more quantisation matrices to achieve a similar desired effect]; and encoding, based at least in part on the quantization matrix, at least a portion of the video content [FIG. 6, encoder 118, pars. 78-79]. Rosewarne discloses all the limitations of the claim. For completeness, it is noted that Zhang with the exception of “receiving, from a device configured for output of video, a viewing parameter associated with output of the video content” all the remaining limitations of the claim [FIG. 2, pars. 151-153 where the quantization unit 54 uses well-known HVS model (see Examiner’s Note in the above) to ignore (i.e., set to zero) those quantization coefficients that represent high-frequency spatial and high-frequency temporal components, i.e., elements that are in the lower right-hand-side of the quantization matrix. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to combine Rosewarne with Zhang with the motivation to devise a method and apparatus for encoding video wherein following quantization the video encoder scans the transform coefficients, producing a one-dimensional vector from the two-dimensional matrix including the quantized transform coefficients wherein the scan is designed to place higher energy (and therefore lower frequency) coefficients at the front of the array and to place lower energy (and therefore higher frequency) coefficients at the back of the array where the latter is ignored in lossy video coding [Zhang: par. 85].
With respect to claim 2, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the pixel data comprises at least one of chrominance pixel data [par. 37] or luminance pixel data [par. 9].
With respect to claim 3, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the video content comprises a plurality of frames, further comprising determining one or more of the luminance pixel data associated with a frame of the plurality of frames or the chrominance pixel data associated with the frame [abstract, par. 9].
With respect to claim 4, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses wherein the quantization matrix is further associated with the frame of the plurality of frames, and wherein the generating the quantization matrix comprises determining, based on the viewing parameter and the one or more of the luminance pixel data or the chrominance pixel data, the quantization matrix [pars. 9 and 15-16 where EOTF refers to Electro-Optical Transfer Function standardized as SMPTE ST.2084 – also please note that the quantization parameter chrominance (QP) for each chroma transform block (TB) is derived for the QP for the corresponding luma TB as noted in par. 127].
With respect to claim 5, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses wherein the frame comprises a plurality of partitions, and wherein the one or more of the luminance pixel data or the chrominance pixel data is associated with a partition of the plurality of partitions [FIG. 5, par. 71].
With respect to claim 6, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the encoding the at least a portion of the video content comprises quantizing, based on the quantization matrix, one or more transform coefficients associated with at least a portion of the one or more of the luminance pixel data or the chrominance pixel data, and entropy encoding the quantized one or more transform coefficient [FIGS. 11A-11B, par. 144].
With respect to claim 7, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the one or more of the luminance pixel data or the chrominance pixel data comprises residual image data [par. 71].
With respect to claim 8, Rosewarne, in view of Zhang, disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses determining, based on the viewing parameter and the pixel data, a contrast sensitivity function (CSF), wherein the generating the quantization matrix comprises determining, based on the viewing parameter, the pixel data and the CSF, the quantization matrix [pars. 14, 66-67, Eq. 1].
With respect to claims 9-16, the claims are drawn to devices that perform a series of steps that are commensurate in scope with steps of claims 1-8, respectively. Therefore, claims 9-16 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness with the same motivation as noted in the above rejection of claims 1-8, respectively.
With respect to claims 17-24, the claims are drawn to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions therein that, when executed on an electronic device, causes the device to perform a series of steps that are commensurate in scope with steps of claims 1-8, respectively. Therefore, claims 17-24 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness with the same motivation as noted in the above rejection of claims 1-8, respectively.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures:
Westwater, US 2014/0328406 A1, discloses system and method for
in a coding system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jayanti Patel whose telephone number i571-272-2988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Pacific Time.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on (571) 272-2988. 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.
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485 May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights