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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July 11, 2024 and August 20, 2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 101 Statutory Analysis
The claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “a decoder integration layer” to “generate a decoded reconstruction of the original input video signal using a decoded video signal from a base encoding layer and one or more layers of residual data from an enhancement encoding layer” in claim 48, and “the decoder integration layer” is configured to “obtain a preliminary set of residuals from an encoded enhancement signal comprising one or more layers of residual data, 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; and, instruct combining the preliminary set of residuals with a texture of a GPU to combine the preliminary set of residuals with a set of temporal residual values, wherein the texture acts as a temporal buffer storing the set of temporal residual values” in claim 48.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Page 39 of the specification Wu describes the decoder. The above-mentioned configuration of the decoder is a functional configuration achieved by cooperation of the hardware configuration and a program. As described on page 39, the decoder includes a CPU, a memory, a storage, and an input/output IF as a hardware configuration. These are connected to each other by a bus. The CPU (Central Processing Unit) controls another configuration in accordance with a program stored in the memory, performs data processing in accordance with the program, and stores the processing result in the memory. The CPU can be a microprocessor. The memory stores a program executed by the CPU and data. The memory can be a ROM (Read Only Memory).
Claim rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
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.
Claims 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 29, line 6 recites the limitation “instructing combining the preliminary set of residuals with a texture of a GPU to combine the preliminary set of residuals with a set of temporal residual values, wherein the texture acts as a temporal buffer storing the set of temporal residual values”. “Instructing combining” is unclear, vague and indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the claim as in the European Application EP 23700321 (see amendment filed on 02/21/2024 to claim 1).
Claim 32, line 3 recites the limitation “channel values of the texture”. “channel values of the texture” is unclear, vague and indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the claim as in the European Application EP 23700321 (see amendment filed on 02/21/2024 to claim 4).
Claim 47, line 7 recites the limitation “instructing combining the preliminary set of residuals with a texture of a GPU to combine the preliminary set of residuals with a set of temporal residual values, wherein the texture acts as a temporal buffer storing the set of temporal residual values”. “Instructing combining” is unclear, vague and indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the claim as in the European Application EP 23700321 (see amendment filed on 02/21/2024 to claim 1).
Claim 48, line 10 recites the limitation “instructing combining the preliminary set of residuals with a texture of a GPU to combine the preliminary set of residuals with a set of temporal residual values, wherein the texture acts as a temporal buffer storing the set of temporal residual values”. “Instructing combining” is unclear, vague and indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the claim as in the European Application EP 23700321 (see amendment filed on 02/21/2024 to claim 1).
Claims 30, 31 and 33-46 variously depend from an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “a computer readable medium”, consistent with a conclusion reached by one skilled in the art based on both the specification disclosure and the state-of-the-art, is that the full scope covers transitory “signal” embodiments. The state-of-the-art at the time the invention was made included signals, carrier waves and other wireless communication modalities (e.g. RF, infrared, etc.) as media on which executable code was recorded and from which computers acquired such code. Thus, the full scope of the claim covers “signals” and their equivalents, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
The examiner suggests clarifying the claims to exclude such non-statutory signal embodiments, such as (but not limited to) by reciting a “non-transitory a computer readable medium”, or equivalents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-46 and 48 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claim 47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of the record fail to teach or suggest singly and/or in combination a system and method for implementing and enhancement decoding which provides for obtaining a preliminary set of residuals from an encoded enhancement signal comprising one or more layers of residual data, 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 and, instructing combining the preliminary set of residuals with a texture of a GPU to combine the preliminary set of residuals with a set of temporal residual values, wherein the texture acts as a temporal buffer storing the set of temporal residual values as prescribed for in 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.”
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baeza, Wu and Christoffersen both disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. 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 Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
February 6, 2026