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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an election filed, without traverse, on 06/15/2026 of continuation application in which claims 2-21 of the instant application are pending. Claims 2-10 and 17-21 are being examined while claims 11-16 are considered withdrawn.
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 2-9 and 17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,493. 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 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,493, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 2-9 and 17-21 of the instant application obvious. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,493. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: decoder configured to obtain, decoder configured to parse, decoder configured to reconstruct, etc... in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 limitations “decoder configured to obtain”, “decoder configured to parse”, “decoder configured to reconstruct”, etc... in claim 20 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear disclosure of structure apparent in the decoder in the aforementioned independent claims. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 2, 7-9, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by V-Nova (“Working Draft of Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding”). V-Nova was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 07/09/2025.
As to claim 20, V-Nova teaches a decoder configured to:
obtain an encoded data stream, the encoded data stream being encoded by an encoder according to a tier-based hierarchical format (Abstract and Page 2, Section 2 describing LCEVC; also see Page 26, Section 9.1 describing the decoding process);
parse the encoded data stream to determine signal processing information signaled by the encoder; and reconstruct a higher resolution tier of the signal from a lower resolution tier of the signal, including selectively performing one or more signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier based on the determined signal processing information (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 2, the aforementioned claim is rejected similarly as claim 20.
As to claim 21, V-Nova teaches a method of encoding a signal, comprising:
encoding a lower resolution tier of a tier-based hierarchical format; encoding a higher resolution tier of a tier-based hierarchical format, the higher resolution tier being encoded using data generated during the encoding of the lower resolution tier; and generating an encoded data stream using an output of the encoding of the lower resolution tier and an output of the encoding of the higher resolution tier (Abstract and Page 2, Section 2 describing LCEVC; also see Page 26, Section 9.1 describing the decoding process; Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12);
the method further comprising: determining signal processing information for one or more signal processing operations that are performed to enhance data within the higher resolution tier, the one or more signal processing operations being performed as part of a reconstruction of the higher resolution tier using the data generated during the encoding of the lower resolution tier; and encoding the signal processing information as part of the encoded data stream (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 7, V-Nova further teaches wherein at least part of the data corresponding to the signal processing information is determined based at least in part on a set of predefined values for configuration data for the signal, the configuration data configuring one or more signal processing operations that are not the signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 8, V-Nova further teaches wherein: the one or more signal processing operations are selectively performed prior to adding residual data for the higher resolution tier of the signal; and/or the one or more signal processing operations provide a super-resolution signal (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 9, V-Nova further teaches wherein the one or more signal processing operations are implemented as part of an upsampling operation, the upsampling operation generating the higher resolution tier of the signal from the lower resolution tier of the signal (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 17, V-Nova further teaches wherein the one or more signal processing operations comprise an additional upsampling operation that is applied to an output of a last layer with residual data within the tier-based hierarchical format (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 28-31, Section 9.4; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 18, V-Nova further teaches, following reconstructing a higher resolution tier: applying dithering to an output of the reconstructed higher resolution tier (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
As to claim 19, V-Nova further teaches wherein the tier-based hierarchical format is one of MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC (“Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding”) and SMPTE VC-6 ST-2117 (Abstract and Page 2, Section 2 describing LCEVC).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V-Nova in view of Ivan (“Proposed changes to temporal signaling”). Ivan was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 07/09/2025.
As to claim 3, V-Nova does not explicitly teach wherein at least part of the data corresponding to the signal processing information is embedded in one or more values received in one or more encoded data layers transmitted within the encoded data stream, wherein said values are associated with transformed coefficients that are processed to derive elements of the signal during the decoding.
However, Ivan teaches wherein at least part of the data corresponding to the signal processing information is embedded in one or more values received in one or more encoded data layers transmitted within the encoded data stream, wherein said values are associated with transformed coefficients that are processed to derive elements of the signal during the decoding (Sections 2 and 4 of Ivan which also refer back to the V-Nova reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify V-Nova’s system with Ivan’s system in order to enable more efficient entropy techniques (Ivan; Section 2).
As to claim 4, the combination of V-Nova and Ivan teaches wherein the signal processing information is embedded in one or more values for a predefined transformed coefficient within a set of different transformed coefficients that are generated by an encoding transform (Ivan; Sections 2 and 4).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V-Nova in view of Hannuksela (US 2021/0127140).
As to claim 5, V-Nova does not explicitly teach wherein at least part of the data corresponding to the signal processing information is encoded within an additional information payload.
However, Hannuksela teaches wherein at least part of the data corresponding to the signal processing information is encoded within an additional information payload ([0100] and [0317]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify V-Nova’s system with Hannuksela’s system in order to provide enhanced video coding techniques.
As to claim 6, the combination of V-Nova and Hannuksela teaches wherein the additional information payload comprises one or more supplementary enhancement information messages (Hannuksela; [0100] and [0317]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V-Nova in view of Rossato (US 2014/0321555).
As to claim 10, V-Nova does not explicitly teach wherein selectively performing one or more signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier comprises: determining operating parameters for a decoder performing the decoding; responsive to a first set of operating parameters, performing the one or more signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier using signal processing parameters within the determined signal processing information; and responsive to a second set of operating parameters, omitting the one or more signal processing operations or substituting the one or more signal processing operations with a default signal processing operation.
However, V-Nova does teach determining operating parameters for a decoder performing the decoding; responsive to a first set of operating parameters, performing the one or more signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier using signal processing parameters within the determined signal processing information; and responsive to a second set of operating parameters, omitting the one or more signal processing operations or substituting the one or more signal processing operations with a default signal processing operation (Page 18, Section 8.3.8; Pages 24-25, Section 8.4.5; Pages 41-42, Section 9.9; Page 44, Section 9.12).
In addition, Rossato teaches selectively performing certain image processing operations that include dithering, reconstruction, and sharpening operations ([0047], [0225], and [0230]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify V-Nova’s system with Rossato’s system to show wherein selectively performing one or more signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier comprises: determining operating parameters for a decoder performing the decoding; responsive to a first set of operating parameters, performing the one or more signal processing operations to enhance the higher resolution tier using signal processing parameters within the determined signal processing information; and responsive to a second set of operating parameters, omitting the one or more signal processing operations or substituting the one or more signal processing operations with a default signal processing operation. In Rossato’s disclosure, there is provided an innovative approach to achieve efficient bit streams and scalability while at the same time maintaining backward compatibility with decoding and/or display hardware that was designed for known decoding methods (Rossato; [0028]).
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