DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argued that the terms “a plurality of scalers” and “encoder” are not generic elements but rather terms that would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.
While Applicant’s arguments are understood, the specification as-originally filed does not teach or show alternative structures for the terms “a plurality of scalers” and “encoder.” The specification as-originally filed clearly teaches in paragraphs 0004 and 0069 “an encoder comprising one or more processors configured to encode at least some of the plurality of scaled frames” and “When acting under the control of appropriate software or firmware, the processor 1001 is responsible for configuring and implementing video data scaling, as discussed above,” emphasis added. Thus, the terms “a plurality of scalers” and “encoder” are embedded on a processor.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
4. 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.
5. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) 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: “a plurality of scalers configured to…; and encoder configured to…” in claims 1 and 11.
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. The specification as-originally filed discloses in paragraph 0069 software or firmware executed by a processor for implementing the claimed functions of the processing device and the plurality of scalers; therefore, the plurality of scalers and the encoder are embodied using a processor.
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 Objections
6. Applicant is advised that should claims 1-10 be found allowable, claims 11-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 10 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 teach the limitation “wherein the plurality of display parameters are modified as one of the plurality of adjustable windows shown on the connected display device is modified.” It is unclear where said limitation is taught in the specification as-originally filed. The specification teaches in different sections the plurality of display parameters; however, it is unclear where it is taught that the plurality of display parameters are modified as on one of the plurality of adjustable windows is modified. The amount of guidance or direction in the application, as originally filed, are not sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art on how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlman et al. (US 2010/0166062) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Perlman” in view of Hanechak (US 2009/0067753) cited in IDS.
As per claim 1, Hanechak discloses a system comprising:
Perlman discloses a system comprising:
a decoder having a processor (paragraphs 0452-0453) configured to decode a plurality of video streams including a first video stream received from a first video source and a second video stream received from a second video source over a communications network (paragraph 0440, FIG. 31f shows details of Shared video scaling and recompression 3142, along with a larger number of HQ video compressors HQ 3121H1-3131H1. Internal routing 3192, per requests for particular video streams scaled to particular sizes from the App/Game Servers 3121-3125, selects typically a subset of compressed HQ streams from HQ video compressors HQ 3121H1-3131H1. A stream within this selected subset of streams is routed either through a Decompressor 3161-3164 if the stream requested is to be scaled, or routed on Non-scaled Video path 3196 if the stream requested is at full resolution. The streams to be scaled are decompressed to uncompressed video by Decompressors 3161-3164);
a plurality of scalers configured to scale a plurality of frames in the first video stream to generate a plurality of scaled frames (Fig. 31f; paragraph 0440,…Note that if a particular HQ stream is requested at more than one resolution, then Internal Routing 3192 multicasts that stream (using IP multicasting technology that is well-known by practitioners in the art) to one or more Decompressors 3161-3164 and (if one a requested size if full resolution) to Outbound Routing 3193. All of the requested streams, whether scaled (from Compressors 3181-3184) or not (from Internal Routing 3192), are then sent to Outbound Routing 3193)… wherein the plurality of scalers are shared by the plurality of video streams and a number of video streams assigned to a particular scaler can be updated dynamically, wherein at least one scaler processes frames from both the first video stream and the second video stream (Fig. 31f; paragraph 0440, The streams to be scaled are decompressed to uncompressed video by Decompressors 3161-3164, then each scaled to the requested size by Scalers 3171-3174, then each compressed by Compressor 3181-3184. Note that if a particular HQ stream is requested at more than one resolution, then Internal Routing 3192 multicasts that stream (using IP multicasting technology that is well-known by practitioners in the art) to one or more Decompressors 3161-3164 and (if one a requested size if full resolution) to Outbound Routing 3193. All of the requested streams, whether scaled (from Compressors 3181-3184) or not (from Internal Routing 3192), are then sent to Outbound Routing 3193. It is clear that each scaler scales a decompressed HQ stream, as shown in Fig. 31f; in addition, when a particular HQ stream is requested at more than one resolution, the particular HQ stream is scaled by the scalers. Therefore, one or more of the scalers scales more than one HQ stream. This process changes dynamically based on the request of generating the particular HQ stream with more than one resolution);
a memory device configured to store the plurality of scaled frames (Fig. 31d shows that the output of the shared video scaling and recompression 3142, which are scaled and compressed frames as described in Fig. 31f, is routed to delay buffer 3115); and
an encoder configured to encode the plurality of scaled frames into an output video stream (Fig. 31f; paragraph 0440, The streams to be scaled are decompressed to uncompressed video by Decompressors 3161-3164, then each scaled to the requested size by Scalers 3171-3174, then each compressed by Compressor 3181-3184).
However, Perlman does not explicitly disclose scaling a plurality of frames…using a plurality of display parameters associated with a plurality of adjustable windows shown on a connected display device.
In the same field of endeavor, Hanechak discloses scaling a plurality of frames…using a plurality of display parameters associated with a plurality of adjustable windows shown on a connected display device (FIG. 4A, paragraph 0043, Given the image data, embodiments of the invention may scale each of the images according to the resolved display parameters (440). For example, with reference to FIG. 3B, the display parameters may dictate that each of the images 310, 320, 330 be equal in height. As a result, the images 310, 320, 330 are scaled to a common, predetermined height, h.sub.T, while maintaining the aspect ratio of each image 310, 320, 330. Next, the scaled images are arranged according to the display parameters (450). The display parameters may determine one or more ways in which the images can be positioned relative to one another. Referring again to FIG. 3B, for example, the display parameters may require that each image 310, 320, 330 be positioned adjacent to another image to form a single row of images as shown. Moreover, the scaled images may be arranged independent of an image area of a product design; see also paragraph 0077-0078, images B and C 520, 530 are positioned to the right of the image area 505, rotated at differing angles, and scaled to occupy the upper and lower bounds of the image area 505…With images B and C 520, 530 positioned as a vertical photo strip, image A 510 is scaled so that its height matches the height of the photo strip), associated with a plurality of adjustable windows shown on a connected display device (claim 1, analyzing a plurality of images to produce image data, the image data including aspect ratio of each image of the plurality of images; and based on the image data, display parameters and a display area, defining an arrangement within the display area for the plurality of images such that the display parameters are satisfied and at least one dimension of the arrangement is maximized; see also paragraphs 0037, 0042-0043, 0046, 0049, and 0052, wherein the area of each image, as shown in figs. 3B-3C and 5A-5E, is interpreted as adjustable window since it follows a design layout).
Therefore, it will be obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Perlman in view of Hanechak, by using display parameters associated with a plurality of adjustable windows in scaling video frames. Thus, improving display arrangement of the frames to fit within the display area. This rational applies to all combination of Perlman and Hanechak used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 2, Hanechak discloses wherein the connected display device shows a plurality of windows each having different display parameters, wherein the plurality of windows are overlapping on the connected display device (see FIGs. 5B-5E and paragraphs 0060-0067, 0078).
As per claim 3, Hanechak discloses wherein the plurality of scalers use a plurality of priority parameters to generate the plurality of scaled frames, wherein the plurality of priority parameters comprise a priority map and a priority table, wherein the priority table is generated using a priority map, wherein the priority map is configured to represent relationships between windows displayed on the display device as priority levels (figs. 5A-5E shows design layouts of the images, each image occupies an area within the total area 505, wherein the relationships can be interpreted as “uniform photo arrangement” of fig. 5A, "overlap photo arrangement" of fig. 5B, "scatter photo arrangement" of fig. 5C, "fan photo arrangement" of fig. 5D, or "large photo arrangement" of fig. 5E), and wherein the priority table assigns at least some of the plurality of scalers to at least some of the windows using the priority map (paragraph 0048, arranging the images according to the display parameters, and scaling the arrangement to fit the display area (450); for instance the scaling of the arrangement of fig. 5E as taught in paragraphs 0077-0078, image A 510 is the primary image, while images B and C 520, 530 are the small images. Images B and C 520, 530 are first arranged in a "vertical photo strip" as described above with respect to FIG. 3C. Yet rather than position the images as shown in the image display 301 of FIG. 3C, images B and C 520, 530 are positioned to the right of the image area 505, rotated at differing angles, and scaled to occupy the upper and lower bounds of the image area 505… With images B and C 520, 530 positioned as a vertical photo strip, image A 510 is scaled so that its height matches the height of the photo strip).
As per claim 4, Hanechak discloses wherein the priority map is configured to represent the priority levels determined based on windows overlapping and an order of overlapping windows (see fig. 5B; paragraph 0060-0061).
As per claim 5, Hanechak discloses wherein the priority map is updated based on a change in the order of overlapping windows (fig. 4B, steps 445-455; paragraph 0049).
As per claim 6, Hanechak discloses wherein a buffer is used to store the priority table (memory 111 of server 110 in fig. 1; paragraph 0027).
As per claim 7, Perlman discloses wherein the plurality of scalers is implemented in a reprogrammable logic device, and wherein a number of the plurality of scalers is dynamically configurable (paragraphs 0450-0451).
As per claim 8, Perlman discloses wherein each of the plurality of scalers is configured to apply upscaling or downscaling to video data included in the plurality of frames (paragraph 0432 and 0436).
As per claim 9, Perlman discloses wherein the plurality of video streams is displayed on the connected display device and an additional display device (paragraph 0254, With so many viewers, there are bound to be many viewers with display devices 422 that have the same or nearly the same resolution (each app/game server 1521-1525 has the ability to scale the video for adjusting the fitting)).
As per claim 10, Hanechak discloses wherein the plurality of display parameters are modified as one of the plurality of adjustable windows shown on the connected display device is modified (paragraph 0049; FIG. 4B, steps 44 and 455).
As per claims 11-20, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 1-10 are applicable for claims 11-20.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (Vu et al. “A scalable hash scheduler for decoding of multiple H.264/AVC streams on multi-core architecture”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482