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 Amendment
The objections to claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17 have been withdrawn in view of current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.9-11, filed January 28, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1, 8, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 contains the acronym SEI. The Examiner recommends to spell the word Supplemental Enhancement Information before the usage of the acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1, line 11 partially recites “a text description string in the bitstream”. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a text description string in the bitstream” in line 11 is the same or a different text description string in the bitstream as the one in lines 4-5. The same issue is present in claim 8.
Claim 15 recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium for video processing, storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising:”. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream of video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream was generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, is a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim could instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:”
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0377554).
Regarding claim 15 Kim discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium for video processing, storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising:
signaling a text description purpose indicating a type of information included in a text description string, the text description purpose having a numerical value equal to or greater than zero; and
signaling an artificial intelligence (AI) marking information associated with one or more pictures within a persistence scope of an SEI message in the bitstream as the text description string when the text description purpose indicates that the type of information included in the text description string comprises marking information associated with one or more artificial intelligence processes used; and
encoding visual media data (non-transitory computer-readable recording medium – [0035, 0038]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Publication No. 2024/0223813
Chen et al. (“AHG9: Common text for proposed generative face video SEI message”, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 31st Meeting, Geneva, CH, 11-19 July 2023, Document: JVET-AE0280-v1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights