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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 7-15, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Due to the new amendments no art rejection has been applied, but a 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection is being applied. If the 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection were to be overcome, then the claims appear to be allowable pending a further search/ consideration. Details of the 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection will be further described below. The Examiner is open to having an interview to further discuss the 112 rejection along with any future amendments.
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, 4, 7-15, 19, and 20 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 requires a processor to detect a first video frame having a resolution different from a resolution of a previous video frame among the video frames decoded by the video decoder; detect a plurality of second video frames adjacent to the first video frame; control a resolution of the first video frame and the second video frames by applying pre-configured quality factor changes to the first video frame and the plurality of second video frames, wherein the quality factor changes comprises a sharpness value; determine whether a scene change is a made in the first video frame; and based on the resolution of the first video frame being higher than the resolution of the previous video frame and the first video frame not being a video frame in which the scene change is made, control the sharpness value of the first video frame to be reduced and control the sharpness values for the plurality of second video frames after the first video frame to sequentially increase, and control the sharpness value of a second video frame, from among the plurality of second video frames, in which the scene change occurs, to be restored to an original setting value. The last limitation of the claim is unclear as to what happens to the first video frame when the scene change occurs because the first video frame is only mentioned after a scene change did not occur. Furthermore, the newly amended claim does not set up an if/then conditional statement, which means it would never make it to claims 8-10 because claims 8-10 requires the resolution of the first video frame being lower than the resolution of the previous video frame. Claims 15 and 20 have the same situation as claims 1 and 8-10.
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 HEATHER R JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri.: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/HEATHER R JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights