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
Examiner agrees with applicant’s argument on page 2 with respect to the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections. Therefore, the previous nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections with respect to claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 claim rejections filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant(s) asserts with arguments (on pages 2-4) that neither Chen nor Chandran, taken individually or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest the features of “wherein at least one frame is not encoded into the bitstream output according to the plurality of content activity analysis results” as required by independent claims 1 and 19.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Chen already discloses content activity analyzer circuit (see fig. 4 unit 168 and/or fig. 10 unit 868), arranged to apply a content activity analysis process (see fig. 2 unit 34) to a plurality of frames (see fig. 1 and/or fig. 2 unit 30, e.g. “GOP”), and generate a plurality of content activity analysis results (see col. 4 lines 52-54 and col. 10 lines 31-36), the examiner does not rely on Chen to teach such capabilities regarding “wherein at least one frame is not encoded into the bitstream output according to the plurality of content activity analysis results” as claimed. Thus, the examiner merely introduced Chandran to teach the well-known concept of “wherein at least one frame is not encoded (see fig. 1A, paragraph [0076], e.g., “where the examiner notes that by referring to fig. 1A and paragraph [0076], that the input of encoder 106 does not receive or process the output of nonencoded video frames 104 when the input of computation engine 118 is capable of receiving the nonencoded frames 104 as illustrated by the dotted line path illustrated in Fig. 1A”) into the bitstream output (see fig. 1A, e.g., “bitstream output → of encoded video frames 104’ “) according to the plurality of content activity analysis results” (see paragraphs [0053] and [0059]).
Accordingly, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejections and applicability of the prior art used. Since dep. claims 2-18 and 20 each depend on one of independent claims 1 or 19, these dependent claims are rejected for the same or similar reasons as the claims from which they depend. Rejections of claims 1-20 are sustained for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (“Chen”) (US Patent No.: 8,774,272 B1) in view of Chandran et al. (“Chandran”) (US Pub. No.: 2020/0380261 A1) for the same reasoning as stated in the office action dated 11/24/2025.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Larbier (US Pub. No.: 2018/0302627 A1) discloses method for analyzing a video sequence and equipment for implementing said method.
Wells (US Pub. No.: 2004/0240546) discloses method and/or apparatus for analyzing the content of a surveillance image.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1220. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/R.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
March 12, 2026