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 October 25, 2024 and December 26, 2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruls (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0140269 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Bruls”).
With regard to claim 1, Bruls describes an obtainer that obtains a first video signal through broadcast or through communication via a network (see Figure 2, element 201 and refer for example to paragraph [0019], which describes obtaining a high resolution video input); an expander that performs an up-scaling process of expanding the first video signal obtained, according to a first parameter which is set (see Figure 2, element 216 and refer for example to paragraph [0020] which discusses the up-scaling of the first video signal); and a processor (refer for example to paragraph [0032] which discusses a programmed computer, and to paragraphs [0021], [0024] and [0025] which discusses a control unit ,which is essentially the processor of the programmed computer, carrying out the various operations) that when the first video signal is a broadcast video signal obtained through the broadcast and a resolution of the first video signal has changed, changes the first parameter according to the resolution changed and when the first video signal is a communication video signal obtained through the communication, sets the first parameter to a fixed value (refer for example to paragraphs [0005] and [0007], which discuss that the base layer has one resolution and the enhancement layer has a different resolution, and to paragraphs [0021] through [0031], which discuss that the parameters are changed in order to provide a sharpness enhanced output video signal).
As to claim 8, Bruls describes obtaining a first video signal through broadcast or through communication via a network (see Figure 2, element 201 and refer for example to paragraph [0019], which describes obtaining a high resolution video input); performing an up-scaling process of expanding the first video signal obtained, according to a first parameter which is set (see Figure 2, element 216 and refer for example to paragraph [0020] which discusses the up-scaling of the first video signal); and when the first video signal is a broadcast video signal obtained through the broadcast and a resolution of the first video signal has changed, changing the first parameter according to the resolution changed and when the first video signal is a communication video signal obtained through the communication, setting the first parameter to a fixed value (refer for example to paragraphs [0005] and [0007], which discuss that the base layer has one resolution and the enhancement layer has a different resolution, and to paragraphs [0021] through [0031], which discuss that the parameters are changed in order to provide a sharpness enhanced output video signal).
In regard to claim 9, Bruls describes a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the video signal processing method according to claim 8 (refer for example to paragraph [0032] which discusses a programmed computer, and to paragraphs [0021], [0024] and [0025] which discusses a control unit, which is essentially the processor of the programmed computer, carrying out the various operations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103(a) 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bruls (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0140269 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Bruls”) in view of Nam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0211172 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Nam”).
The arguments advanced in section 7 above, as to the applicability of Bruls, are incorporated herein.
With regard to claim 10, although Bruls does not expressly describe the use of a neural network to provide sharpness adjustment of video signal, such a technique is well known and widely utilized in the prior art.
Nam discloses a signal processing device which provides for performing sharpness adjustment on video signals obtained by performing the up-scaling process on the first video signal (refer for example to paragraphs [0129] through [0133] which discuss up-sampling a video signal, and to paragraph [0344] which discuss the sharpness processing), wherein the sharpness adjusting is performed using a neural network and mixes a result of the first sharpness adjustment process and a result of the second sharpness adjustment process at a predetermined ratio, and the processor adjusts the predetermined ratio to more emphasize sharpness as the resolution of the first video signal decreases (refer for example to paragraph [0351]).
Given the teachings of the two references and the same environment of operation, namely that of systems for sharpness adjustment on video signals obtained by performing the up-scaling process, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bruls system in the manner described by Nam according to known methods to yield predictable results and would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide for increased processing efficiency and higher accuracy as suggested by Nam (refer for example to paragraph [0002]), which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art absent some novel and unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garg and Kim 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
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights