Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a continuation application filed in which claims 11-30 are pending and ready for examination as of the preliminary amendment filed on 10/29/2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,586. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,586 contain every element of claims 11-30 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the subject matter in claims 3, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent Number 11,546,586 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claims 11, 18, and 25 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,572. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,572 contain every element of claims 11-30 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the subject matter in claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent Number 12,160,572 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claims 11, 18, and 25 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2006/0018379) in view of Labrozzi (US 2011/0235703).
As to claim 18, Cooper teaches a conference system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes (FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]):
receiving a temporal sequence of frames (FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]); identifying a predictive structure for encoding of the temporal sequence of frames ([0012], [0020], [0027], [0034], [0040], [0041], [0046], and [0048]; also see FIGs. 1, 3, and 5); and deriving a synchronization signal (FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]).
Cooper does not teach deriving a synchronization signal using at least the predictive structure.
However, Cooper does teach deriving a synchronization signal using the temporal sequence of frames (FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]). In addition, Labrozzi teaches deriving a synchronization signal using a predictive structure of a temporal sequence of frames ([0072]-[0073], [0082]-[0093], [0095], [0119]-[0122], and [0126]-[0131] – providing synchronous GOP structures using timestamp and time code information to provide GOP alignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cooper’s multi-channel video transmission system with Labrozzi’s stream synchronization method for live video encoding to show deriving a synchronization signal using at least the predictive structure in order to provide systems/methods allowing live encoding systems to start asynchronously from each other while maintaining a frame-accurate, time-based association of output frames as well as systems/methods for causing these output streams to be GOP aligned with one another. Being able to start asynchronously may permit restart and recovery after a system failure (Labrozzi; [0065] and [0072]).
As to claims 11 and 25, the aforementioned claims are rejected similarly as claim 18.
As to claims 12, 19, and 26, the combination of Cooper and Labrozzi teaches sending the synchronization signal to an end point (Cooper; FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]; Labrozzi; FIGs. 6 and 7 and [0067]-[0068], [0071], [0073], [0079], and [0119]).
As to claims 13, 20, and 27, the combination of Cooper and Labrozzi teaches wherein the synchronization signal comprises information relating to time points allocated to I-frames in the temporal sequence of frames (Cooper; see [0027], [0029], and [0033]-[0035] and FIG. 5 for I-frame staggering; Labrozzi; [0072]-[0073], [0082]-[0093], [0095], [0119]-[0122], and [0126]-[0131]).
As to claims 14, 21, and 28, the combination of Cooper and Labrozzi teaches wherein the synchronization signal comprises information relating to a time offset between the positions of non-prediction coded frames in the temporal sequence of frames (Cooper; see [0027], [0029], and [0033]-[0035] and FIG. 5 for I-frame staggering; Labrozzi; [0072]-[0073], [0082]-[0093], [0095], [0119]-[0122], and [0126]-[0131]).
As to claims 15, 22, and 29, the combination of Cooper and Labrozzi teaches wherein the synchronization signal comprises information relating to a number of prediction-encoded frames in the temporal sequence of frames (Cooper; see [0034]-[0042] and FIGs. 4-6, particularly FIG. 6; Labrozzi; [0072]-[0073], [0082]-[0093], [0095], [0119]-[0122], and [0126]-[0131]).
As to claims 16, 23, and 30, the combination of Cooper and Labrozzi teaches wherein the synchronization signal comprises an instruction to shorten a frame group length (Cooper; [0038]-[0042] discloses shortening frame sequences in a GOP).
As to claims 17 and 24, the combination of Cooper and Labrozzi teaches receiving another temporal sequence of frames (Cooper; FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]); identifying another predictive structure for encoding of the other temporal sequence of frames (Cooper; [0012], [0020], [0027], [0034], [0040], [0041], [0046], and [0048]; also see FIGs. 1, 3, and 5); and deriving the synchronization signal using the predictive structure and the other predictive structure (Cooper; FIGs. 1 and 3 and [0012], [0020], and [0048]; Labrozzi; [0072]-[0073], [0082]-[0093], [0095], [0119]-[0122], and [0126]-[0131]).
Conclusion
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 on 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