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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 11, and 17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 29, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the obtained video", “the process of bit stream parsing” in respective lines 3 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the bit stream length”, and “the current consumption length” in respective lines 3, 4, and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “a first detection result” in line 11. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a first detection result” of claim 2 is the same or a different “a first detection result” as in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the record of the byte counter", “the byte consumption”, “the record of the byte counter”, “the length of the current operating byte-align”, “the length of the previous frame”, “the length of the current bit stream”, “the bit stream counter”, and “the rated total length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the different syntax elements”, “the values corresponding to each syntax element”, “the bit stream analysis”, “the bit stream out-of-bounds behavior”, “the effective range”, “the value of a syntax element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “a second detection result” in line 13. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a second detection result” of claim 4 is the same or a different “a second detection result” as in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the different syntax elements”, “the bit stream analysis”, “the bit stream out-of-bounds behavior”, and “the number of the leading zero”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “a second detection result” in line 14. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a second detection result” of claim 5 is the same or a different “a second detection result” as in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the error information”, “the error level”, “the current frame”, “the current slice”, “the screen information”, “the coordinate information”, “the next slice”, “the error point”, “the information that an error was found”, and “the current parsing position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the obtained video bit stream” and “the process of bit stream parsing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the bit stream length”, and “the current consumption length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “a first detection result” in line 11. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a first detection result” of claim 8 is the same or a different “a first detection result” as in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the record of the byte counter", “the byte consumption”, “the record of the byte counter”, “the length of the current operating byte-align”, “the length of the previous frame”, “the length of the current bit stream”, “the bit stream counter”, and “the rated total length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the different syntax elements”, “the values corresponding to each syntax element”, “the bit stream analysis”, “the bit stream out-of-bounds behavior”, “the effective range”, “the value of a syntax element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “a second detection result” in line 13. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a second detection result” of claim 10 is the same or a different “a second detection result” as in claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the different syntax elements”, “the bit stream analysis”, “the bit stream out-of-bounds behavior”, and “the number of the leading zero”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a second detection result” in line 14. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a second detection result” of claim 11 is the same or a different “a second detection result” as in claim 7.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the error information”, “the error level”, “the current frame”, “the decoding of the current slice”, “the screen information”, “the coordinate information”, “the next slice”, “the error point”, “the information that an error was found”, and “the current parsing position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the obtained video bit stream” and “the process of bit stream parsing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the bit stream length”, and “the current consumption length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “a first detection result” in line 12. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a first detection result” of claim 14 is the same or a different “a first detection result” as in claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the record of the byte counter", “the byte consumption”, “the length of the current operating byte-align”, “the length of the previous frame”, “the length of the current bit stream”, “the bit stream counter”, and “the rated total length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the different syntax elements”, “the values corresponding to each syntax element”, “the bit stream analysis”, “the bit stream out-of-bounds behavior”, “the effective range”, “the value of a syntax element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a second detection result” in line 13. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a second detection result” of claim 16 is the same or a different “a second detection result” as in claim 13.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the configuration information", “the driving end”, “the different syntax elements”, “the bit stream analysis”, “the bit stream out-of-bounds behavior”, and “the number of the leading zero”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “a second detection result” in line 14. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a second detection result” of claim 17 is the same or a different “a second detection result” as in claim 13.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the error information”, “the error level”, “the current frame”, “the decoding of the current slice”, “the screen information”, “the coordinate information”, “the next slice”, “the decoding of the current frame”, “the error point”, “the information that an error was found”, and “the current parsing position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the video stream”, “the network abstraction layer”, and “the control system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a bitstream preprocessing module configured to preprocess the video stream inputted from the network abstraction layer”, “an entropy decoding module configured to perform entropy decoding on the video stream preprocessed by the bit stream preprocessing module”, “a video decoding module configured to decode and filter the video stream processed by the entropy decoding module”, and “a frame reconstruction module configured to perform frame reconstruction of the video stream processed by the video decoding module” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morie et al. (US 2012/0005562).
Regarding claim 1 Morie discloses a control method for bit stream parsing error detection in a video hardware decoder, performed by a computer device, comprising:
performing a bit stream security range detection on the obtained video stream to obtain a first detection result (obtaining the total amount of a consumed stream output from the decoding circuit – [0053]);
performing a bit stream extremum detection on the obtained video stream to obtain a second detection result (a "threshold" which is equal to the total amount of a consumed stream in a normal condition (free from an error) is set to be "16" bits – [0055]); and
performing an anomaly detection on the process of bit stream parsing on the video stream, and performing an exception handling or a frame reset on the video stream according to the results of the anomaly detection based on the first detection result and the second detection result (the decoding circuit reads a leading portion of the stream in the buffer circuit, and outputs "1" which is the length of "0" as a consumed stream amount to the disabling circuit. The disabling circuit compares the total consumed stream amount of "1" with the threshold of "16." Because the total consumed stream amount is lower than or equal to the threshold, the disabling circuit 15 outputs "0" as the decoding disable signal. Because the decoding disable signal is "0," the decoding circuit 12 performs a decoding process, and outputs a decoding result "a" to the control circuit 13. The control circuit 13 confirms that the decoding disable signal is "0" and continues the process – [0056]).
Claim 7 corresponds to a control systems that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 13 corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer code which, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least processor to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morie et al. (US 2012/0005562) in view of Naito et al. (US 2024/0205434).
In regards to claim 19, Morie discloses the limitations of claim 7. However, is silent on a bit stream preprocessing module configured to preprocess the video stream inputted from the network abstraction layer; an entropy decoding module configured to perform entropy decoding on the video stream preprocessed by the bit stream preprocessing module; a video decoding module configured to decode and filter the video stream processed by the entropy decoding module; a frame reconstruction module configured to perform frame reconstruction of the video stream processed by the video decoding module; and a driving end and the control system
In his disclosure Naito teaches a bit stream preprocessing module configured to preprocess the video stream inputted from the network abstraction layer (preprocessing an encoded bitstream – [0026]; performing bitstream parsing such as separating a network abstraction layer – [0080]); an entropy decoding module configured to perform entropy decoding on the video stream preprocessed by the bit stream preprocessing module (Entropy Decoding Unit 80 in Figure 7); a video decoding module configured to decode and filter the video stream processed by the entropy decoding module (Decoding Device 112); a frame reconstruction module configured to perform frame reconstruction of the video stream processed by the video decoding module (the decoding device 112 forms a decoded video block by summing the residual blocks from inverse transform processing unit 88 with the corresponding predictive blocks generated by motion compensation unit 82. Summer 90 represents the component or components that perform this summation operation – Fig. 7, [0140]); and a driving end and the control system for bit stream (control processor that can interface with other drivers – [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Naito into the teachings of Morie because the usage of decoding components to parse/decode a bitstream is a well-known technique in the filed of video coding and yields expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482