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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-4, 9-12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadu et al. (US Pat. No. 11,430,095 hereinafter referred as Kadu).
Regarding claim 1, Kadu discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors, coupled to memory (see col. 31 lines 7-20), and configured to:
generate a set of features using a decoded media of an encoded media stream, the decoded media stored in a first region of the memory for which access by a processing component is prevented (see figure 2A; col. 7 line 66-col. 8 line 28 feature pruning and prediction model selection, system operate separately; see col. 3 lines 33-49 image metadata optimization; see col. 7 lines 10-20);
store the set of features in a second region of the memory for access by the processing component (see col. 7 lines 10-20 images are stored separately); and
wherein the processing component accesses the set of features in the second region of memory for processing by the processing component while being prevented from accessing the decoded media in the first region of memory (see col. 5 lines 30-43 using the generated metadata at the downstream decoders; display devices that don’t have display capabilities; see col. 6 lines 11-54 non-reference HDR display devices).
Regarding claim 2, Kadu discloses the one or more processors is further configured to generate the set of features and the processing component is further configured to execute a second processor of the one or more processors to access the set of features in the second region of memory (see col. 5 lines 34-43 and col. 6 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 3, Kadu discloses the processing component is a machine-learning model (see col. 7 lines 28-47 and col. 13 lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 4, Kadu discloses the processing component is a machine-learning processor (see col. 7 lines 28-47 and col. 13 lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of claim 9 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 9 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 10-12 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 2-4 respectively above.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation of claim 16 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 16 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Kadu discloses the device is a set-top unit (see col. 4 lines 1-19).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 3-4 above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 5-8, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadu et al. (US Pat. No. 11,430,095 hereinafter referred as Kadu) in view of Slipko et al. (US Pat. No. 11, 095, 937 hereinafter referred as Slipko).
Regarding claim 5, although Kadu discloses the limitation of claim 1, Kadu fails to specifically disclose the said one or more processors are further configured to securely protect the decoded media in the first region of memory.
In the same field of endeavor, Slipko discloses a method for secure video processing where an encrypted video stream is stored in public memory accessible by a central processing unit and allocating a private stream buffer at a buffer location in private memory which is accessible by a decryption unit, wherein the private memory is not accessible for central processing unit (see abstract; col. 1 lines 21-36 trusted and untrusted layer; see col. 6 lines 41-50, encrypted video stream comprises ultra-high definition video content, and a decrypted high definition video stream is then retrievable from the private stream buffer only, ensuring that the decrypted stream is not accessible for central processing unit).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Slipko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kadu by adding the feature of ‘securely protect the decoded media in the first region of the memory’ in order to allow a private stream buffer to be allocated in private memory at some buffer location and to provide additional security requirements when processing and streaming high quality media.
Regarding claim 6, Slipko discloses the one or more processors are further configured to prohibit decoded raw pixels of the decoded media from being accessed by non-secure processing components (see col. 4 lines 39-60 and col. 6 lines 4-61). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Slipko discloses the one or more processors are further configured to meet secure video processing (SVP) requirements with respect to one of the decoded media or the encoded media stream (see abstract col. 3 line 63-col. 4 line 7 and line 61-col. 5 line 1; and col. 6 lines 51-54). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 8, Slipko discloses the one or more processors are further configured to format the set of features in a format that does not need to meet the SVP requirements (see col. 6 lines 22-40 and also col. 3 lines 42-62). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 5, 6, and 7 and 8 respectively above.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 7 and 8 respectively above.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 19 of U.S. Patent No.12,170,814. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, the Patent application claim 11 recites a system for improving security of media streams, comprising: one or more processors of a device, the one or more processors configured to: receive a decoded media stream from a media decoding pipeline that receives and decodes an encoded media stream; identify, based on the decoded media stream, a set of features to generate; generate the set of features using the decoded media stream; store the set of features in a first region of memory accessible by a processor executing a machine-learning model while storing the decoded media stream in a second region of memory for which the processor executing the machine-learning model is prevented from accessing; and provide via the first region of memory the set of features to the processor executing a machine-learning model, wherein the processor executing the machine-learning model is prevented from accessing the second region of memory storing the decoded media stream by the device.
Regarding claim 2, the Patent application claim 18 recites the features of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the Patent application claim 11 recites the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the Patent application claim 11 recites the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, the Patent application claim 1 recites the a method of improving security of media streams, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors of a device, a decoded media stream from a media decoding pipeline that receives and decodes an encoded media stream; identifying, by the one or more processors, based on the decoded media stream, a set of features to generate; generating, by the one or more processors, the set of features using the decoded media stream, the one or more processors storing the set of features in a first region of memory accessible by a processor executing a machine-learning model while storing the decoded media stream in a second region of memory for which the processor executing the machine-learning model is prevented from accessing; and providing, by the one or more processors using the first region of memory, the set of features to the processor executing the machine-learning model, wherein the processor executing the machine-learning model is prevented from accessing the second region of memory storing the decoded media stream by the device.
Regarding claim 10, the Patent application claim 2 recites the features of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the Patent application claim 1 recites the features of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the Patent application claim 1 recites the features of claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, the Patent application claim 19 recites the features of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the Patent application claim 19 recites the features of claim 19.
Claims 5-8, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,814 in view of Slipko et al. (US Pat. No. 11, 095, 937).
Regarding claim 5, although the Patent application claim 11 recites the feature of claim 1, the Patent application fails to recite one or more processors are further configured to securely protect the decoded media in the first region of memory.
In the same field of endeavor, Slipko discloses a method for secure video processing where an encrypted video stream is stored in public memory accessible by a central processing unit and allocating a private stream buffer at a buffer location in private memory which is accessible by a decryption unit, wherein the private memory is not accessible for central processing unit (see abstract; col. 1 lines 21-36 trusted and untrusted layer; see col. 6 lines 41-50, encrypted video stream comprises ultra-high definition video content, and a decrypted high definition video stream is then retrievable from the private stream buffer only, ensuring that the decrypted stream is not accessible for central processing unit).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Slipko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Patent application by adding the feature of ‘securely protect the decoded media in the first region of the memory’ in order to allow a private stream buffer to be allocated in private memory at some buffer location and to provide additional security requirements when processing and streaming high quality media.
Regarding claim 6, Slipko discloses the one or more processors are further configured to prohibit decoded raw pixels of the decoded media from being accessed by non-secure processing components (see col. 4 lines 39-60 and col. 6 lines 4-61). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Slipko discloses the one or more processors are further configured to meet secure video processing (SVP) requirements with respect to one of the decoded media or the encoded media stream (see abstract col. 3 line 63-col. 4 line 7 and line 61-col. 5 line 1; and col. 6 lines 51-54). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 8, Slipko discloses the one or more processors are further configured to format the set of features in a format that does not need to meet the SVP requirements (see col. 6 lines 22-40 and also col. 3 lines 42-62). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 5, 6, and 7 and 8 respectively above.
Regarding claim 17, Slipko discloses the device is a set-top unit (see col. 6 lines 51-60). The motivation to combine the prior art is discussed in claim 5 above.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 7 and 8 respectively above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 February 20, 2026