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
This action is in response to the remark entered on May 13, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13-27, 134, 136-137 pending in the instant application.
Claims 2, 6-7, 11-12, 28-133, 135 & 138-288 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 21, 24, 134 & 136 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 05/13/2026, pages 2-3, regarding the rejection of claim 1, 134 & 136 have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bruls et al. (US 6,614,989 B1) (hereinafter Bruls) in view of Sita (US 2004/0150747 A1) (hereinafter Sita), and further in view of Rajamani et al. (US 2016/0188279 A1) (hereinafter Rajamani) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 1, 134 & 136 below, where Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations are addressed by Rajamani and are rejected for the reasons outlined below.
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 134 & 136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruls et al. (US 6,614,989 B1) (hereinafter Bruls) in view of Sita (US 2004/0150747 A1) (hereinafter Sita), and further in view of Rajamani et al. (US 2016/0188279 A1) (hereinafter Rajamani).
Regarding claim 1, Bruls discloses a computer-implemented method of encoding a colour video, the colour video comprising colour video frames, the colour video frames including 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels [Cols. 2-4, ll. 66-25, HDTV encoder implementing encoding of HDTV video frames being 1920x1080 luminance pixels], the method including the step of:
(i) encoding colour video frames using a 240 elements by 135 elements representation of the 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels, each element comprising an encoded 8x8 pixel block, wherein each encoded 8x8 pixel block is represented using a representation including a codeword [Cols. 2-4, ll. 66-25, encoding of HDTV video frames being 1920x1080 luminance pixels, with 240x135 blocks as shown in Fig. 1, dividing into image blocks of 8x8 pixels, transformed into 64 spectral coefficients represented by 12 bits as codewords].
However, Bruls does not explicitly disclose the codeword including 64 bits, wherein the codeword comprises 64 bits including a codeword type, with zero or more extension codewords depending on the codeword type specified.
Sita teaches the codeword including 64 bits, wherein the codeword comprises 64 bits including a codeword type, with zero or more extension codewords depending on the codeword type specified [Paragraph [0207], The coefficients for the exemplary embodiment are placed in a 64 bit word from left to right, C0 to C7. The coefficients C0, C1, C6 and C7 are signed 7-bit 2's complement values, and C2 and C5 are signed 8-bit 2's complement and C3 and C4 are signed 10-bit 2's complement values representing a range from -256 to 767. C3 and C4 are adjusted to derive the 11-bit 2's complement values. If both bit 8 and bit 9 (the most significant bit) are 1, then the sign of the 11-bit value is 1 (negative), otherwise the value is 0 (positive)].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Bruls to integrate the 64-bit codeword data in Sita as above, to provide decoding systems that are relatively inexpensive and yet have sufficient power to decode digital signals in real time and supports conversion into multiple low resolution formats that must minimize processor memory (Sita, Paragraph [0008]).
However, Bruls and Sita do not explicitly disclose wherein encoding the video includes lossy encoding.
Rajamani teaches wherein encoding the video includes lossy encoding [Paragraph [0064]-[0065], the various video compression standards bodies such as the Motion Photographic Expert Group (MPEG) that defined the first MPEG-1 compression standard (1993) employ lossy compression techniques including still-image encoding of intra-frames (“I-frames”) (also known as “key” frames) in combination with motion prediction techniques used to generate other types of frames such as prediction frames (“P-frames”) and bi-directional frames (“B-frames”).].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Bruls to integrate lossy video encoding techniques in Rajamani as above, since lossless video would have been impractical on many levels, the various video compression standards bodies such as the Motion Photographic Expert Group (MPEG) that defined the first MPEG-1 compression standard (1993) employ lossy compression techniques (Rajamani, Paragraph [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 134, claim 134 is drawn to a computer program product that recites limitations similar to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Regarding claim 136, device claim 136 is drawn to the device using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore device claim 12 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-27 and 137 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, and overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejections outlined above.
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-27 and 137 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights