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
Amendment, filed on 01/27/2026, has been entered.
Claims 3-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 are pending.
Note: Claim 15 is related to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a video bitstream and double-rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The instant application has a lengthy prosecution history and the examiner encourages the applicant to have an interview (telephonic or personal) with the examiner prior to filing a response to the instant office action. Also, prior to the interview the examiner encourages the applicant to present multiple possible claim amendments, so as to enable the examiner to identify claim amendments that will advance prosecution in a meaningful manner.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments is addressed in the Advisory Action mailed on 01/15/2026.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (“Choi”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0366911 A1]
Regarding claim 15, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a video bitstream [para. 0182, 0183: ‘The computer readable media can have computer code thereon for performing various computer-implemented operations’] that is generated by a video encoding method (i.e. ‘computer-implemented operations’) [Abstract, para. 0182, 0183: ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums for video encoding’], the video encoding method comprising
[Note: The claim’s recitation of a bitstream coded by the encoding method, the method comprising…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the “bitstream” and the process is the “method steps” to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the recording medium storing the bitstream.
To be given patentable weight, recording medium and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the recording medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by reference Choi which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Abstract, para. 0182, 0183).]
obtain video data;
encode, based on the video data, a syntax indicating a temporal restoration mode
into the video bitstream, wherein the syntax comprises:
an index only, the index indicating whether the temporal restoration is enabled and one temporal resampling ratio of at least one temporal resampling
ratios; and
when the temporal restoration is enabled, encode the video data into the coded
video bitstream based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio,
wherein:
when the index is zero, the temporal restoration is disable,
when the index is larger than zero, the temporal restoration is enabled, and
the temporal resampling ratio is (M+1) or 2^(M+1), wherein M is an unsigned integer value of the index.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (“Choi”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0366911 A1] in view of mathematical obviousness
Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (“Choi”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0366911 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for decoding a coded video bitstream, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a device [Fig. 4: ‘The video decoder (410)’] comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory [para. 0108, 0117: ‘one or more processors that execute software instructions’], a coded video bitstream;
extracting, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a syntax (i.e. ‘The coded video sequence may conform to a syntax’) [para. 0067, 0092, 0112: ‘nuh_temporal_idflus1’ indicating ‘temporal layer of a coded picture’] indicating a temporal restoration (i.e. temporal upsampling in light of Spec [para. 0068]) mode (i.e. ‘St,k’) [para. 0125, 0138: ‘If both values of … are the greater than 1, the resampling process can be an up-sampling process’; ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion. If the value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’], wherein the syntax comprises:
an index only, the index (i.e. ‘St,k’) indicating whether the temporal restoration is enabled [para. 0138: disclosing mathematically when St,k is 0, there is no temporal restoration] and one temporal resampling ratio of at least one temporal resampling ratios (i.e. ‘F*St,k’) [para. 0138: ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion. If the value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’ ‘where St,k indicates a temporal sampling ratio for layer k’]; and
when the temporal restoration is enabled, restoring, by the device, reconstructed [Fig. 4, 7, 12; para. 0125, 0137-0138, 0161: ‘At step (S1220), the process (1200) reconstructs one of the plurality of sub-pictures’] frames to obtain restored frames based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio (i.e. ‘F*St,k’) [para. 0125, 0138: ‘If both values of … are the greater than 1, the resampling process can be an up-sampling process’],
wherein:
when the index is zero [para. 0125, 0138: ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame rate up conversion’ and ‘if a value of St,k is smaller than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame down conversion’. It is obviously understood: If St,k =0 or 1, resampling is disable], the temporal restoration is disable,
when the index is larger than zero, the temporal restoration is enabled [para. 0125, 0138: ‘if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion’], and
the temporal resampling ratio is (M + 1) or 2^(M+ 1), wherein M is an unsigned integer value of the index (For (M+1), It is understood: M= 0, 1, 2, 3, ….; the temporal resampling ratio is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …. Note: the value of the index M=0 (the limitation “when the index is zero” is met); the resampling ratio = 1, equivalently no temporal restoration) [para. 0138: if St,k =0 or 1, no change in frame rate (i.e. no temporal resampling); if a value of St,k is greater than 1, the temporal resampling process can be a frame up conversion‘ (i.e. the temporal frame up ratio = 2, 3, 4, .. which is also the outcome of the limitation (M+1)’. Choi’s teaching of St,k obviously discloses the temporal resampling ratio (M+1)].
Regarding claim 8, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of ‘A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions’ and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Dane et al (“Dane”) [US 2006/0039471 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Choi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method according to claim 1, wherein the restoring reconstructed frames to obtain restored frames based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio comprises: performing, based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio, frame interpolation based on the reconstructed frames to generate frames to be added with the reconstructed frames to obtain the restored frames.
However in the same field of endeavor Dane discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the restoring reconstructed frames to obtain restored frames based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio comprises: performing, based on the indicated temporal resampling ratio, frame interpolation [Fig. 2: F2; para. 0005: ‘frame interpolation, also known as frame rate up conversion (FRUC), is typically used at the decoder to interpolate the content of intentionally skipped frames’] based on the reconstructed frames (i.e. ‘F1’ and ‘F3’) [Fig. 2] to generate frames [Fig. 2: ‘F2’] to be added with the reconstructed frames to obtain the restored frames.
Choi and Dane are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi and Dane as motivation to include frame interpolation for increasing the frame rate is increased in accordance with the video standards [Dane: para. 0004].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488