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 claim(s) 30-33, 34-47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Generic Placeholder coupled with functional language
Corresponding structural support from the specification
… a subtraction module configured to subtract …
Fig. 4 el. 405
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 30 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
Claim 39 is 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.
Regarding claim 39 which recites the limitation, “the subtraction module is comprised in a secure region of a video decoder chipset and operations are performed on secure memory…” It is unclear from the claims and the specification as originally filed, what is to be considered a “secure region of a video decoder” and “secure memory”.
The term “secure” in claim 39 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “secure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
(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(s) 30-32, 35-42, 44-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Meardi et al., (WO 2020/188273 A1; as recited in the IDS filed 04/24/2024).
As per claim 30, Meardi teaches a module for use in a video decoder (fig. 2), configured to: receive one or more layers of residual data from an enhancement decoding layer, the one or more layers of residual data being generated based on a comparison of data derived from a decoded video signal and data derived from an original input video signal (fig.2-5C, abstract, pg. 8 lines 4-9; pg. 25 lines 17 – pg. 26 lines 7, lines 23-32, pg. 28 lines 13-23; pg. 34 lines 28-33 “.. residual may be computed by comparing two images or video signals. In one case, residuals are computed by comparing frames from an input video stream with frames of a reconstructed video stream. In the case of the level 1 enhancement stream as described herein the residuals may be computed by comparing a down-sampled input video stream with a first video stream); process the one or more layers of residual data to generate (figs. 1-5B ): a set of modified residuals comprising one or more layers of positive residual data, wherein the positive residual data comprises only values greater than or equal to zero (fig 20 and pg. 10 lines pg. 27 lines 2-5, lines 16-26; and pg. 97 lines 31 to pg. 98 line 7 “… filtering may be seen as setting certain residual values to zero, i.e. such that an input residual value is filtered out and does not form part of the encoded level 1 stream 326”); and one or more layers of correction data comprising one or more layers of negative residual data (pg. 8 lines 14-17; “the general structure of an example coding scheme presented herein uses a down-sampled source signal encoded with a base codec, adds a first level of correction data to the decoded output of the based codec..” and further disclosed in fig. 20A, where x-axis 2001 of figure 20A represents residual or coefficient values”; and pg. 14 and 30-33; pg. 25 lines 11-16; pg.97 lines 30 to pg. 98 lines 20 and figs, 20A-20C), the correction data being configured to combine with a based decoded video signal from a base decoding layer to modify the based decoded video signal such that, when the one or more layers of positive residual data are combined with the modified base decoded video signal to generate enhanced video data (pg. 8 lines 14-17; 14 and 30-33; pg. 25 lines 11-16)), the enhanced video data corresponds to a combination of the base decoded video signal with the one or more layers of residual data from the enhancement decoding layer so as to account for the modification made to generate the one or more layers of residual data (figs. 1-5C), wherein elements of the correction data are calculated as a function of a plurality of elements of the residual data (pg. 9 lines 25 to col.10 lines 2).
As per claim 31, Meardi teaches wherein dimensions of the one or more layers of correction data correspond to dimensions of a downsampled version of the one or more layers of residual data (fig. 1-5B, 20 and pg. 8 lines 3-13).
As per claim 32, Meardi teaches, wherein the positive residual data is generated using the correction data and the one or more layers of residual data (pg. 10 lines 16-24; pg. 27 lines 19-26 and figs.1-5B and fig.20; “…the level 1 residuals selection or ranking component 321 is an implementation of a general filtering component that may modify the first set of residuals. Filtering may be seen as setting certain residual values to zero, i.e. such that an input residual value is filtered out and does not form part of the encoded level 1 stream 326”).
As per claim 35, Meardi discloses wherein the module is a module in a CPU or GPU of a video decoder (pg. 105 lines 6-8).
As per claim 36, Meardi teaches a module for use in a video decoder, configured to: receive a base decoded video signal from a base decoder layer (fig. 2, fig. 5A-B); receive one or more layers of correction data from an enhancement decoding layer, the one or more correction data comprising one or more layers of negative residual data (pg. 8 lines 14-17; “the general structure of an example coding scheme presented herein uses a down-sampled source signal encoded with a base codec, adds a first level of correction data to the decoded output of the based codec..” and further disclosed in fig. 20A, where x-axis 2001 of figure 20A represents residual or coefficient values”; and pg. 14 and 30-33; pg. 25 lines 11-16; pg.97 lines 30 to pg. 98 lines 20 and figs, 20A-20C); and combine the correction data with the base decoded video data signal to modify the base decoded video signal (pg. 8 lines 14-17; 14 and 30-33; pg. 25 lines 11-16 and figs. 1-5B), wherein elements of the correction data are calculated as a function of a plurality of elements of one or more layers of residual data from the enhancement decoding layer (pg. 9 lines 25 to col.10 lines 2) such that, when one or more layers of positive residual data are combined with the modified based decoded video signal to generate enhanced video data, the enhanced video data corresponds to a combination of the base decode video signal with the one or more layers of residual data from the enhancement decoding layer so as to account for the modifications made to generate the one or more layers of residual data (figs. 1-5C and pg. 8 lines 14-17; 14 and 30-33; pg. 25 lines 11-16), wherein the positive residual data comprises only values greater than or equal to equal to zero and is based on one or more layers of residual data from an enhancement decoding layer (figs. 1-5B, 20 and (figs. 1-5B, fig. 20 and pg. 10 lines pg. 27 lines 2-5, lines 16-26; and pg. 97 lines 31 to pg. 98 line 7 “… filtering may be seen as setting certain residual values to zero, i.e. such that an input residual value is filtered out and does not form part of the encoded level 1 stream 326”), the one or more layers of residual data being generated based on a comparison of data derived from a decoded video signal and data derived from an original input video signal (fig.2-5C, abstract, pg. 8 lines 4-9; pg. 25 lines 17 – pg. 26 lines 7, lines 23-32, pg. 28 lines 13-23; pg. 34 lines 28-33 “.. residual may be computed by comparing two images or video signals. In one case, residuals are computed by comparing frames from an input video stream with frames of a reconstructed video stream. In the case of the level 1 enhancement stream as described herein the residuals may be computed by comparing a down-sampled input video stream with a first video stream).
As per claim 37, Meardi teaches wherein the module is a subtraction module (figs. 1-5B) configured to subtract the one or more layers of correction data from the base decoded video signal to generate the modified decoded video signal (figs. 1-5B).
As per claim 38, Meardi teaches wherein the module is a module in a hardware block or GPU of a video decoder chipset (figs. 1-5B and pg. 105 lines 6-8).
As per claim 39, Meardi teaches wherein the subtraction module is comprised in secure region of a video decoder chipset (figs. 1-5C and 27) and operations are performed on secure memory of the video decoder chipset (pg. 281 lines 11 to 34).
As per claim 41, which is the corresponding method for use in a video decoder with the limitations of the module for use in a video decoder as recited in claim 30. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 30 also applies here.
As per claim 42, which is the corresponding method for use in a video decoder with the limitations of the module for use in a video decoder as recited in claims 32, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 32 also applies here.
As per claim 44, which is the corresponding method for use in a video decoder with the limitations of the module for use in a video decoder, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 36 also applies here.
As per claim 45, which is the corresponding method for use in a video decoder with the limitations of the module for use in a video decoder as recited claim 37, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 37 also applies here.
As per claim 46, Meardi teaches upsampling the modified base decoded video signal (figs. 1-5C); and, combining the upsampled modified based decoded video signal with the one or more layers of positive residual data to generate a decoded reconstruction of an original input video signal (figs. 1-5C, fig. 20 and pg. 29 lines 6-12; pg. 31 lines 33 to pg. 32 line 2), wherein the step of combining the upsampled modified base decoded video signal with the one or more layers of positive residual data is performed by a hardware block, GPU or video output path of a video decoder chipset (figs. 1-5C and pg. 281 lines 11 to 34).
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.
Claim(s) 40 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meardi et al., (WO 2020/188273; as provided in the IDS filed 04/24/2024) and in view of Sun et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0046612 A1).
As per claim 40, Meardi teaches wherein the module is further configured to apply a dither plane (pg. 43 lines 28 to pg. 44 line 2). Meardi does not explicitly disclose wherein the dither plane is input at a first resolution, the first resolution being lower than a resolution of the enhanced video data.
However, Sun teaches wherein the dither plane is input at a first resolution, the first resolution being lower than a resolution of the enhanced video data ([0007], [0044], [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun with Meardi for the benefit of improving coding efficiency, [0062].
As per claim 47, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the module as recited in claim 40, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 40 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 43 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clark et al., (U.S. Patent No. 9442904 B2), “Systems and Methods For Applying A Residual Error Image”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights