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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video”. There are no recitations of a processor or other element-merely a generated bitstream content (a bitstream generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus). Under MPEP 2111.05(III), this claim is merely machine-readable media. The Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. To overcome this rejection, the Examiner recommends adding a method comprising instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium which cause a processor to generate a bitstream.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DA SILVA PRATAS GABRIEL, (US 2022/0385897).
Claim 20 has been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video”. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 20 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is generated should not be given patentable weight.
DA SILVA PRATAS GABRIEL, which is analogous art, discloses non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video [¶0010 teaches: a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied, e.g., stored, thereon]. As such, DA SILVA PRATAS GABRIEL clearly anticipates the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, and 4-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art DA SILVA PRATAS GABRIEL et al., (US 2021/0099722) which teaches methods and systems for super-resolution based prediction for video coding; and KIM et al., (US 2023/0052774) which teaches a recovered low-quality image is generated by performing encoding on an original image and a recovered high-quality image is generated using the recovered low-quality image. An image is segmented into multiple regions, and encoded reconstruction information for generating a reconstructed high-quality image is generated by performing encoding on the image. These references, either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious especially the underlined limitations of claim 1 (and the similar apparatus limitations of claim 19 along with the ) including [a] method of processing video data, comprising: using coded information during application of a super resolution (SR) process to a video unit; and performing a conversion between a video comprising the video unit and a bitstream of the video based on the SR process as applied using the coded information, wherein the coded information comprises encoded information or decoded information, wherein an input of the SR process comprises reconstructed samples and decoded information, and wherein the decoded information comprises one or more of partition information, prediction information, and an intra prediction mode.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, ZHANG et al., (US 2019/0052911); which teaches techniques for upscaling reconstructed video frames using filters for super resolution video coding;
JOSHI et al., (US 2019/0394482) which teaches accessing an encoded bitstream; decoding loop restoration parameters in the encoded bitstream; after reconstruction of an image at a second resolution based on data of the encoded bitstream, upscaling the reconstructed image to obtain an upscaled reconstructed image at a first resolution;
DA SILVA PRATAS GABRIEL et al., (US 2010/0007518) which teaches block-level super-resolution video coding;
YEA et al., (US 2022/0201307) which teaches coded information to indicate whether to apply a super resolution coding mode to one or more blocks; and
MEARDI, (US 2024/0040160) which teaches a cascade of non-linear adaptive filters for upsampling that generate a form of simplified “super-resolution” upsampling.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485