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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (“AHG8: Signaling and Filtering for Reference Picture Resampling”).
As to claim 1, Choi teaches a video encoder comprising: circuitry configured to receive a source video signal; circuitry configured to encode a bitstream representing the source video signal, the encoded bitstream comprising a reference picture, a current picture having a resolution different from the reference picture and including a first block and a second block, the second block being an intra-coded block, and information useful for determining a scaling constant, the encoded bitstream being further configured by the circuitry to be decodable by a video decoding method comprising (Page 1, Abstract; Pages 2-3, Section 2; Page 3, Section 3; Pages 6-8,7, Sections 4.1-4.4):
determining whether a block-based mode for decoding a current picture of one resolution using a reference picture of a different resolution is enabled; determining a scaling constant using the information in the bitstream; using the enabled mode, determine a scaled prediction block from the reference picture by: determining a location of the scaled prediction block by scaling a motion vector component using the scaling constant; and scaling the resolution of a block of the reference picture using the scaling constant and applying a filter determined specifically for the prediction block and not determined for the whole reference picture; reconstructing the first block using the scaled prediction block; and reconstructing the intra-coded second block without using the mode (this portion of the claim is not given patentable weight).
As to claim 3, Choi teaches a method of transmitting an encoded bitstream representing a source video signal comprising: receiving a source video signal; generating an encoded bitstream, the encoded bitstream comprising a reference picture, a current picture having a resolution different from the reference picture and including a first block and a second block, the second block being an intra-coded block, and information useful for determining a scaling constant, the encoded bitstream being further configured to be decodable by a video decoding method comprising (Page 1, Abstract; Pages 2-3, Section 2; Page 3, Section 3; Pages 6-8,7, Sections 4.1-4.4):
determining whether a block-based mode for decoding a current picture of one resolution using a reference picture of a different resolution is enabled; determining a scaling constant using the information in the bitstream; using the enabled mode, determine a scaled prediction block from the reference picture by: determining a location of the scaled prediction block by scaling a motion vector component using the scaling constant; and scaling the resolution of a block of the reference picture using the scaling constant and applying a filter determined specifically for the prediction block and not determined for the whole reference picture; reconstructing the first block using the scaled prediction block; reconstructing the intra-coded second block without using the mode; and transmitting the encoded bitstream over a channel to a decoder (this portion of the claim is not given patentable weight).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner maintains that the limitations of the recited video decoding method are not necessarily required by the video encoder of claim 1 and the method of transmitting an encoded bitstream of claim 3. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “the encoded bitstream being further configured by the circuitry to be decodable by a video decoding method” means that there is no explicit requirement that the recited operations of the aforementioned video decoding method have to be performed. Likewise, regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the encoded bitstream being further configured to be decodable by a video decoding method” means that there is no explicit requirement that the recited operations of the aforementioned video decoding method have to be performed. In other words, the only requirement to meet the claim limitations of claims 1 and 3 is that the recited encoded bitstream is decodable by a video decoding method, which would encompass any arbitrary video decoding method. Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1 and 3 as a whole, Examiner maintains that the specific limitations of the recited video coding method are not given patentable weight.
In view of the above reasons, Examiner maintains all rejections.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights