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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (European Application 23218634.6 filed December 20th, 2023).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 15 beyond 112 Rejections, Formalities, and the mere incorporation of claims 2 and 10 into their respective independent claims.
Applicant cancelled claims 2 and 10.
The pending claims are 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 15 [Page 9 lines 1 – 25].
While the Applicant provides alleged Specification Support for the amended claims, the Examiner observes the cited Paragraphs 34 – 36 and Figure 1 do not teach the “higher quantizing is performed independently of the measure of amount of noise” [Page 9 lines 13 – 17].
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s Objections to the claims [Page 10 lines 1 – 10]. The Examiner reconsiders the Claim Objections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) and 112(d) Rejections [Page 10 line 11 – Page 11 line 21]. The Examiner reconsiders the 112 Rejections in view of the amended claims.
The Examiner notes the Applicant does NOT comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis section. However, in view of the numerous amendments made to the independent claims and other claims, the Examiner keeps the section and amends the section in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 15 line 12 – Page 16 line 2 and Page 17 line 22 – Page 18 line 15, filed April 13th, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 8, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 Rejection of claims 1, 8, and 9 has been withdrawn.
Examiner’s note: Figures and captions are not included in the line numbering provided.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 11 lines 22 – 25].
Second, the Applicant provides their interpretation of the amended independent claims with alleged benefits of the claimed invention [Page 11 line 26 – Page 13 line 6].
Third, the Applicant provides their summary of Hoang [Page 13 lines 7 – 21], contends Hoang does not teach the claimed “measure of probability” [Page 13 line 22 – Page 14 line 18], and Hoang works on transform coefficients of pixel sets [Page 14 line 19 – Page 15 line 11]. The Examiner observes for the sections of Hoang cited as a whole the probability “measure” (not necessarily a probability computation but just a measure) of the pixel change is required and thus Hoang columns 7 and 8 as the change is “due to” scene changes (not to detect or know a priori a scene change occurs) [Page 13 line 22 – Page 14 line 18]. Regarding the use of transform coefficients [Page 14 lines 19 – Page 15 line 11], the Examiner notes the argument is towards features not claimed as in at least Specification Paragraph 42 the quantization is to be performed either on spatial or frequency domain values.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the pixels values are only in the spatial domain and a frequency transforms is not applied prior [Page 14 line 19 – Page 15 line 11]) 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).
Fourth, the Applicant persuasive argues Hoang does not teach features of the amended independent claims [Page 15 line 12 – Page 16 line 2].
Fifth, the Applicant provides their summary of Ishii [Page 16 lines 3 – 21] and contends the scene change probability is not computed [Page 16 line 22 – Page 17 line 21]. The Examiner notes the combination of Hoang and Ishii were relied upon for the scene change determinations and then compute probabilities / measures related to the change (e.g. motion change as in Hoang Columns 11 and 13 indicative of scene changes) such as Ishii Paragraphs 93 – 98 and the cited section detecting / estimating motion change (obvious variant of scene change claimed).
Sixth, the Applicant persuasively argues Ishii does not teach features of the amended independent claims [Page 17 line 22 – Page 18 line 15].
Seventh, the Applicant offers a very narrow interpretation of the field of art arguing against combining Hoang and Ishii [Page 18 line 16 – Page 19 line 20]. However, in the motivation statements, the relevant / related field of inventions of Hoang and Ishii are cited thus the argument is not persuasive in addition for the various reasons given above (e.g. the Third and Fifth points).
Eighth, the Applicant argues for claim 9 similarly to claim 1 [Page 19 line 21 – Page 20 line 4] forgetting claim 8 is an independent claim as well and contends the other amended claims are allowable [Page 20 lines 5 – 12].
While the Applicant’s points may possibly be understood, the Examiner disagrees with some of the points; however, in view of the amended claims the previous prior art Rejection has been overcome.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 22nd, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed January 12th, 2026). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
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 use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “video processing system having a processing capability” in claim 8.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “video processing system configured for updating a buffer” in claim 9.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “circuitry configured to …” in claim 9.
First, the Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the claimed “circuitry” as connoting sufficient structure and the limitation(s) not invoking Functional Analysis.
Second, in view of Specification Paragraph 49, the “video processing system” positively comprises at least “circuitry” and thus the descriptions of the circuitry as processors / memories in Specifications Paragraphs 50 – 52 and thus contains the “buffers” claimed and processors / structures to perform claimed instructions / functions. Thus, the “video processing system” comprises of only elements that connote sufficient structure and thus the claimed “video processing system” connotes sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 – 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the labels “first”, “second”, and “third”, and the like are used throughout the claim and do not necessarily in the order of the steps of the algorithm (e.g. the “second obtaining function” is missing). The labels / numbering are generally not afforded patentable weight as an extra limitation as the feature raise Indefinite metes and bounds issues. For purposes of examination, the numbering / ordinal numbers are not afforded patentable weight other than distinction in steps (MPEP2111.03 I).
Regarding claim 9, while a reference character is given, the Examiner observes the interpretation of the claimed feature is not limited to the feature identified by the reference character as the claim appears to have Indefinite metes and bounds for being functionally claimed.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claims 11 – 15, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 9 from which they depend and thus are similarly Objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the higher quantizing is performed independently of the measure of amount of noise” as the cited Specification support (Paragraphs 34 – 36) for the amendment do not detail nor render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to achieve such a feature claimed. The Specification is silent regarding the “independently” featured claimed as there is no such mention of “independent” in the Specification.
Regarding claim 1, see claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 3 – 7 and 11 – 15, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
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, and 11 – 15 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 11 recites the limitation "the higher a probability" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in view of the probability measure recitations in claim 9.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a measure of amount of noise" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a measure of amount of noise" in lines 3 – 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations:
“method for updating a buffer in a video processing system” [Claim 1 – amended feature];
“means of a filtering algorithm that reduces temporal noise” [Claims 1, 8, and 9];
“function configured to” [Claim 9]
have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claims are Indefinite as to invoking Functional Analysis in a method (e.g. step for) or software algorithm step (e.g. the function of the instructions / circuitry claimed) as reference to flow charts were made instead of relying on recitations of structure (e.g. circuits) where the Specification provides no clear corresponding structure. Additionally the claims are Indefinite as to the weight to afford possible intended use recitations made functionally as well. Also, in view of the Specification, there is no clear corresponding structure for the “means” claimed and thus has Indefinite metes and bounds. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 3 – 7 and 11 – 15, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 is taken as the representative claim where claim 9 in total recites a novel buffer checking process for pixels to use for prediction and filters / quantizes buffer pixels to compare to use for prediction / noise reduction where the “the higher the measure of probability that a change in the current set of pixel values in relation to the stored set of pixel values is due to changes in the scene, the higher quantizing is performed independently of the measure of amount of noise” limitation is not fairly taught in the prior art including updated search and consideration in particular the “independently” feature as Hoang and Ishii give motivations for high gain / high QP (achieved by high gain)
Claim 1 is the method of claim 9 and claim 8 is the program of claim 9 and thus similar reasons apply.
Regarding claims 3 – 7 and 11 – 15, the dependent claims depend on indicated allowed independent claims and thus similar reasons apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References previously cited against the claims: Hoang, et al. (US Patent #7,711,044 B1 referred to as “Hoang” throughout) [Cited in the Applicant’s November 22nd, 2024 IDS], and Ishii (US PG PUB 2012/0262598 A1 referred to as “Ishii” throughout).
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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights