DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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 limitations are: a communication interface configurable to in claims 1, 3-8, 16-17, 19-21 and 23.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 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 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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-23 are 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.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 16 recite the term “improved video content”, however, this term renders the claims indefinite because the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how the video content is improved. The term “improved video content” 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. The dependent claims do not overcome the deficiencies of their respective independent claims.
Claims 1, 3-8, 16-17, 19-21 and 23 are 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.
Claim limitation “a communication interface configurable to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification teaches a communications protocol (see, ¶0018) and various interfaces (see, ¶0060 & ¶0062), however, the term “communications interface” is absent. For computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitations, a corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor is required. See MPEP 2181 (II)(B). The disclosure is devoid of any sufficient structure that is associated with a computer or microprocessor to perform the functions of the claim limitations listed above. Mere references to a general purpose computer or microprocessor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-17 and 19-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20060215753 A1) in view of Cohen-Solal (US 20030052911 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee) teaches a system comprising:
an encoder configurable to encode a first video stream (fig. 1: video codec 20 or video codec 28 & fig. 3: video codec 20; ¶0059);
a communication interface (fig. 1: channel 16) configurable to:
transmit the first video stream to a second system (¶0040; ¶0044: video information is transmitted between communication devices 12 and 14 in a two-way manner);
receive a first request from the second system for improved video content in a first region of interest (ROI) in the first video stream relative to another portion of the first video stream (fig. 14: ROI pattern 136; ¶0073; ¶0075: ROI indication that highlights, within the video scene, a region or objects that the user wishes to emphasize to the remote user, i.e., by increased image quality); and
receive a second video stream from the second system (¶0040; ¶0044: video information is transmitted between communication devices 12 and 14 in a two-way manner.);
a decoder configurable to decode the second video stream (fig. 1: video codec 20 or video codec 28 & fig. 3: video codec 20; ¶0059);
a display configurable to display the second video stream (fig. 3: user interface 42; ¶0060); and
a processing circuit configurable to:
generate a second request for improved video content in the second ROI in the second video stream relative to another portion of the second video stream (¶0076: Both the local near-end ROI indication and far-end ROI indications are provided to an ROI controller. Either may be considered the first or second request),
wherein the communication interface is configurable to transmit the second request to the second system (¶0046; ¶0079; figs. 1 & 3: channel 16 transmits the ROI information).
Not explicitly taught is the processing circuit configurable to: identify a second ROI in the second video stream based on a gaze direction of a user watching the displayed second video stream.
Cohen-Solal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches adjusting the quality level of video content based on where a user is paying attention (i.e., a user’s gaze) (¶¶0031-0033: The video content the user is focusing on (i.e., gaze direction), for a predefined period of time, is delivered to the user at the highest quality compared to the remaining portions of the video content (i.e., improved video content relative to another portion of the second video stream).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teachings of Lee and Cohen-Solal and control the preferential encoding of ROIs in video content based on a user’s gaze. This modification would benefit the Lee invention by maximizing the use of the available bandwidth (Cohen-Solal, ¶0018).
Concerning claim 3, Lee further teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the display includes a touchscreen (fig. 14; ¶0075; ¶¶0123-0125), and
wherein the processing circuit is configurable to generate the second request in response to a touch input received from the touchscreen (fig. 14; ¶0075; ¶¶0123-0125: Drawing the ROI pattern may involve free-hand drawing with a stylus, or resizing or repositioning of a default ROI pattern).
Concerning claim 4, Lee further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is configurable to identify the second ROI in response to a first inquiry received by the communication interface from the second system (¶¶0075-0078: “For ROI patterns that are drawn, repositioned or resized, however, ROI mapper 54 selects MB boundaries that most closely conform to the coordinates of the ROI pattern specified by the user.” Information is communicated in two-way fashion through channel 16 between video communication devices 12 and 14 (fig. 1: channel 16, ¶0046).).).
Concerning claim 5, Lee further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is configurable to generate a second inquiry to request content analysis to identify the first ROI in the first video stream, and wherein the communication interface is configurable to transmit the second inquiry to the second system (¶¶0096-0100: ROI descriptions can include textual or verbal input. An ROI extraction module analyzes the near-end or far-end video, as applicable, to automatically identify the input ROI description and designates coordinates associated with the identified face as the ROI. This information is communicated in two-way fashion through channel 16 between video communication devices 12 and 14 (fig. 1: channel 16, ¶0046). figs. 7A-7D show multiple ROIs may be present in the video content, therefore, multiple inquiries are be made).
Concerning claim 6, Lee further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the encoder is configurable to reduce a quantization parameter for the first ROI in the first video stream in response to the first request (¶0047: preferential quantization in the ROI area, wherein the ROI area receives preferential encoding (i.e., higher quality encoding). Improved quality using preferential quantization indicates reduced quantization of the ROI area.).
Concerning claim 7, Lee further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first request indicates: a location of the first ROI within the first video stream (¶¶0076-0078); and a priority of the first ROI within the first video stream (¶0046: ROI macroblocks (MBs) are flagged with 1 and non ROI MBs are flagged with a 0).
Claim 9 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Concerning claim 16, Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee) teaches a system comprising:
an encoder configurable to encode a first video stream (fig. 1: video codec 20 or video codec 28 & fig. 3: video codec 20; ¶0059);
a communication interface (fig. 1: channel 16) configurable to:
transmit the first video stream to a second system (¶0040; ¶0044: video information is transmitted between communication devices 12 and 14 in a two-way manner);
receive a second video stream from the second system (¶0040; ¶0044: video information is transmitted between communication devices 12 and 14 in a two-way manner.);
a decoder configurable to decode the second video stream (fig. 1: video codec 20 or video codec 28 & fig. 3: video codec 20; ¶0059);
a display configurable to display the second video stream (fig. 3: user interface 42; ¶0060); and
a processing circuit configurable to:
generate a first inquiry to request content analysis by the second system to identify the first region of interest (ROI) in the first video stream (¶¶0096-0100: ROI descriptions can include textual or verbal input. An ROI extraction module analyzes the near-end or far-end video, as applicable, to automatically identify the input ROI description and designates coordinates associated with the identified face as the ROI. This information is communicated in two-way fashion through channel 16 between video communication devices 12 and 14 (fig. 1: channel 16, ¶0046).); and
generate a request for improved video content in the second ROI in the second video stream relative to another portion of the second video stream (¶0076: Both the local near-end ROI indication and far-end ROI indications are provided to an ROI controller. Either may be considered the first or second request),
wherein the communication interface is configurable to transmit the first inquiry and the request to the second system (¶0046; ¶0079; figs. 1 & 3: channel 16 transmits the ROI information).
Not explicitly taught is the processing circuit configurable to: identify a second ROI in the second video stream based on a gaze direction of a user watching the displayed second video stream.
Cohen-Solal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches adjusting the quality level of video content based on where a user is paying attention (i.e., a user’s gaze) (¶¶0031-0033: The video content the user is focusing on (i.e., gaze direction), for a predefined period of time, is delivered to the user at the highest quality compared to the remaining portions of the video content (i.e., improved video content relative to another portion of the second video stream).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teachings of Lee and Cohen-Solal and control the preferential encoding of ROIs in video content based on a user’s gaze. This modification would benefit the Lee invention by maximizing the use of the available bandwidth (Cohen-Solal, ¶0018).
Concerning claim 17, Lee further teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the processing circuit is configurable to identify the second ROI in response to a second inquiry received by the communication interface from the second system (¶¶0075-0078: “For ROI patterns that are drawn, repositioned or resized, however, ROI mapper 54 selects MB boundaries that most closely conform to the coordinates of the ROI pattern specified by the user.” Information is communicated in two-way fashion through channel 16 between video communication devices 12 and 14 (fig. 1: channel 16, ¶0046).).).
Concerning claim 19, Lee further teaches the system of claim 16,
wherein the display includes a touchscreen (fig. 14; ¶0075; ¶¶0123-0125), and
wherein the processing circuit is configurable to generate the second request in response to a touch input received from the touchscreen (fig. 14; ¶0075; ¶¶0123-0125: Drawing the ROI pattern may involve free-hand drawing with a stylus, or resizing or repositioning of a default ROI pattern).
Concerning claim 20, Lee further teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the request indicates a location of the second ROI within the second video stream (¶¶0076-0078).
Concerning claim 21, Lee further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second request indicates an ROI type for the second ROI (¶¶0045-0046; ¶0096; ¶0099 – ROI descriptions identifying the ROI as a face).
Claim 22 is the corresponding method to the system of claim 21 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Concerning claim 23, Lee further teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the second request indicates an ROI type for the second ROI (¶¶0045-0046; ¶0096; ¶0099 – ROI descriptions identifying the ROI as a face).
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20060215753 A1) in view of Cohen-Solal (US 20030052911 A1) and Wang et al. (US 20080013621 A1).
Concerning claim 8, Lee in view of Cohen-Solal teaches the system of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the system, wherein the first request indicates a number of ROIs within the first video stream.
Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang), in the same field of endeavor, teaches syntax for the signaling of ROIs that includes indicating the number of ROIs in a coded picture (¶0047: num_roi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teachings of Lee, Cohen-Solal and Wang in order to provide information regarding the number of ROIs in the video content.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the interpretation of claims 1-8 and 16-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges
“In the Office Action, the Office the asserted that the communication interface recited in claims 1-8 and 16-20 is being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), sixth paragraph. Applicant does not concede the merits of the Office's assertions. However, the Office has not shown that the cited art discloses or suggests all features of the amended claims regardless of whether or not the claims are deemed to invoke pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), sixth paragraph. Thus, for purposes of this response, Applicant does not believe that the interpretation of claims 1-8 and 16-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, affects the patentability of claims 1-8 and 16-20.”
This is not persuasive. The interpretation of the claims as invoking pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, affects the patentability of the pending claims because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claims are indefinite and have been rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The previous phrase “configured to” and the currently amended phrase “configurable to” are analogous in there meaning and are considered “transition” words/phrases. Accordingly, it is maintained that the limitation of “a communication interface configurable to” is interpretated to invoke pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The term “interface” is a substitute for “means” or “step” and is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function. The term “interface” is then modified by functional language, linked by the transition word/phrase “configurable to” and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Based on the 3-prong analysis, a determination was made that the claims are being interpreted according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges
“In the Office Action, the Office rejected claims 1-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite. Without conceding the merits of the rejections, and in the interest of advancing prosecution to an indication of allowance, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that the communication interface is configurable to "receive a first request from the second system for improved video content in a first region of interest (ROI) in the first video stream relative to another portion of the first video stream”.”
This amendment is not persuasive. It is still unclear how the video content is improved. The term “improved video content” is mentioned several times in the specification; however it 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. Stating that the video content is improved “relative to another portion of the first video stream” does not define what “improved” is.
Applicant further alleges
“In addition, the Office asserted that the communication interface recited in claims 1-8 and 16-20 is indefinite. However, Applicant's application describes several example communication interface:
The SoC 1400 also includes application-specific hardware logic, on-chip memory, and additional on-chip peripherals. The peripheral set includes: a configurable video port (Video Port I/F), an Ethernet MAC (EMAC) with a Management Data Input/Output (MDIO) module, a 4-bit transfer/4-bit receive VLYNQ interface, an inter-integrated circuit (12C) bus interface, multichannel audio serial ports (McASP), general-purpose timers, a watch- dog timer, a configurable host port interface (HPI);general-purpose input/output (GPIO) with programmable interrupt/event generation modes, multiplexed with other peripherals, UART interfaces with modem interface signals, pulse width modulators (PWM), an ATA interface, a peripheral component interface (PCI), and external memory interfaces (EMIFA, DDR2). The video port I/F is a receiver and transmitter of video data with two input channels and two output channels that may be configured for standard definition television (SDTV) video data, high definition television (HDTV) video data, and raw video data capture.
Thus, Applicant's specification describes structure that corresponds to the communication interface recited in independent claims 1 and 16. Claims 2-8 and 17-20 ultimately depend from independent claims 1 and 16 and are, therefore, definite for at least the reasons discussed with respect to the respective independent claim.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are definite under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph..”
This is not persuasive. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification teaches a communications protocol (see, ¶0018) and various interfaces (see, ¶0060 & ¶0062), however, the term “communications interface” is absent. In this case, “a communication interface configurable to” is a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation. For computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitations, a corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor is required. See MPEP 2181 (II)(B). The disclosure is devoid of any sufficient structure that is associated with a computer or microprocessor to perform the functions of the claim limitations listed above. Mere references to a general purpose computer or microprocessor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the claims are indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12 of the remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges
“Lee in view of Cohen-Solal fails to disclose or suggest a system comprising a processing circuit configurable to "identify a second ROI in [a] second video stream based on a gaze direction of a user watching the displayed second video stream; and generate a second request for improved video content in the second ROI in the second video stream relative to another portion of the second video stream," as recited in amended claim 1.
In the rejection of claim 2 as previously presented, the Office acknowledged that Lee does not explicitly teach a processing circuit configurable to generate a request by analyzing a gaze direction of a user.5 In an attempt to remedy the deficiencies of Lee, the Office cited Cohen-Solal and asserted that Cohen-Solal discloses "adjusting the quality level of video content based on where a user is paying attention."6.
However, Lee in view of Cohen-Solal fails to disclose or suggest "identify[ing] a second ROI in [a] second video stream based on a gaze direction of a user watching the displayed second video stream; and generat[ing] a second request for improved video content in the second ROI in the second video stream relative to another portion of the second video stream," as recited in amended claim 1.
Cohen-Solal does not describe identifying a ROI based on a user's gaze and requesting improved video content for the ROI relative to another portion of a video stream. Rather, Cohen-Solal describes determining that a user is inattentive and reducing the bandwidth provided to the user in response:
When the detector determines that the user is inattentive, the detector 26 outputs a signal which is transmitted through the network 10 to the provider server 30.⁷
A parameter adjustment module 32 in the provider server 30 manages the data stream of the multi-media content so that the bandwidth used to transmit the multimedia content is reduced during periods of inattentiveness.⁸
[T]he parameter adjustment device 32 may reduce the quality level of the video content in the areas of the output to which the user is not paying attention. For example, if the user is only looking at a lower left hand part of a screen, the parameter adjustment device 32 may reduce the quality level of the video content in the other quadrants of the screen so that only one fourth of the screen is delivered in the highest quality. Once the user, moves his gaze to the remainder of the output, the entire multimedia output is transmitted at the highest quality.⁹
Thus, Cohen-Solal describes maintaining-not improving-the quality level of a portion of video and reducing the quality level of the other portions of the video in response to a gaze of the user. Cohen-Solal does not provide any hint that its gaze detection could be used to request improved video content for an ROI. Rather, Cohen- Solal describes the problem of "[a] provider's equipment and the transmission path between the provider and the user each have a limited capacity."10"The use of the entire bandwidth during the time that the user is not fully attentive is an inefficient use or waste of bandwidth which may be used for other users." Cohen-Solal's entire disclosure is focused on reducing the quality level of video to conserve bandwidth, and there is no mention of requesting improved video content for an ROI.
As a result, Cohen-Solal fails to disclose or suggest "identify[ing] a second ROI in [a] second video stream based on a gaze direction of a user watching the displayed second video stream; and generat[ing] a second request for improved video content in the second ROI in the second video stream relative to another portion of the second video stream," as recited in amended claim 1.”
This is not persuasive. Applicant’s assertion that Cohen-Solal “…describes determining that a user is inattentive and reducing the bandwidth provided in the user response” does not describe the complete invention. The examiner cited portions ¶¶0031-0033 of Cohen-Solal which explicitly teaches determining a user’s gaze direction (i.e., where they are attentive) based on where the user’s gaze has been fixed on a certain portion of the screen for the duration of a time period. When it is determined that the user’s attention has been fixed on a certain portion of the screen, the video content at this quadrant “…of the screen is delivered in the highest quality. (see, ¶0033)”. Accordingly, it is maintained that Cohen-Solal teaches “identifying a second ROI in the second video stream based on a gaze direction of a user watching the displayed second video stream”.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Cohen-Solal describes “…maintaining-not improving-the quality level of the portion of video…”, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “improving-the quality level of the portion of video”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It should be noted that the claims make no mention of “improving” or anything that can be considered the quality level of video. As it stands, the claimed invention merely calls for a request for improved video content in certain ROIs. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the examiner asserts that Cohen-Solal’s teaching of delivering content at the highest quality level at specific ROIs describes the claimed request for “improved video content” because the video presented at the highest quality level is inherently improved video content relative to other portions of the video stream where the quality is lower.
Applicant further alleges
“Contrary to the assertions in the Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art, contemplating the applied references, would not have found an apparent reason, much less one tied to a rational underpinning, to modify Lee's ROI-aware codec in view of Cohen-Solal's gaze tracking to arrive at the system recited in amended claim 1. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art in possession of Cohen-Solal would have understood that the quality level of the video content should be reduced in response to detecting the user's gaze.
Therefore, even if one of ordinary skill in the art, contemplating the disclosure of Lee, would have consulted Cohen-Solal, one of ordinary skill in the art still would not have been guided to modify Lee's ROI-aware codec with the request for improved video content in an ROI identified based on a gaze direction of a user recited in claim 1. Rather, the person of ordinary skill would have guided by Cohen-Solal to use the user's gaze to reduce, not improve, the quality level of the video content. The Office has not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lee's codec to implement a technique that is not disclosed in Cohen-Solal and goes against Cohen-Solal's disclosure. In fact, the Office's proposed modification would detract from Cohen-Solal's stated purpose: "more bandwidth is available during periods of lower attention by that user for other potential users." Thus, it would not have been obvious to modify the Lee's codec in view of Cohen-Solal gaze detection to arrive at the subject matter recited in amended claim 1.
For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable over Lee in view of Cohen-Solal. Wang fails to overcome the deficiencies in Lee in view of Cohen-Solal discussed above. Independent claims 9 and 16 are patentable over the applied references for at least the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.”
This is not persuasive. Paragraph ¶0043 of Lee states “Accordingly, selective allocation of additional encoding bits to an ROI, or other preferential encoding steps, can improve the image quality of a portion of the video while maintaining overall encoding efficiency. For preferential encoding, additional bits may be allocated to the ROI, while a reduced number of bits may be allocated to the non-ROI regions, such as the background in a video scene.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Cohen-Solal as “preferential encoding steps” that would deliver the video content from a certain portion of the screen that a user is focused on at the highest quality level and adjusting the quality level of other portions of the video content the user is not focused on. The goal is to present specific ROI areas to the user at higher quality levels than non-ROI areas. Given this teaching, the examiner asserts the proposed modification would not detract from Cohen-Solal’s stated purpose. Cohen-Solal’s teachings would further improve the Lee invention by choosing the ROI based on the user’s gaze direction.
Claims 3-8, 10-15, 17, 19 and 20 depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 16, therefore, the rejections of these claims are maintained for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to the respective independent claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12 of the remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the claims 21-23 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges
“Claims 21-23 are newly added and recite a combination of features not found in the cited references. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the new claims be entered, considered, and passed to allowance.”
This is not persuasive. Paragraphs ¶0096 and ¶0099 of Lee teaches providing ROI descriptions identifying the ROI as at least a face (i.e., an ROI type). Accordingly, the examiner submits that Lee in view of Cohen-Solal teach the limitations of newly added claims 21-23.
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 JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425