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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 5/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings FIG. 6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show detail labels for each box as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(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.
6. 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.
7. 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: a decoder configured to: perform signal decoding operations in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 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 avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06)
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12191505 B2, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Instant application- 19012267: - Note* bold means different in instant application
Conflicting Patented case 12191505 B2
2. A method of performing signal decoding operations on one or more portions of a signal,
wherein the performing is based at least in part on information embedded in one or more values received in one or more encoded data layers transmitted within a stream of encoded data,
wherein said values are associated with transformed coefficients intended to be processed by a decoder for deriving elements of the signal,
wherein said information comprises an indication of watermarking information associated with the signal.
wherein said information comprises an indication of watermarking information associated with the signal,
wherein the stream of encoded data is comprised within an encoded bitstream, and wherein at least one bit in the encoded bitstream is used to signal to the decoder that one or more values should be interpreted as said information rather than actual quantized values of transformed coefficients.
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.
Claim(s) 2-14, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGÍAS et al (US 20200043120 A1) in view of Demos (US 6957350 B1).
Regarding claim 2, MEGÍAS discloses a method of performing signal decoding operations [e.g. FIG. 1-3; decoding device] on one or more portions of a signal [e.g. a block of a video signal], wherein the performing is based at least in part on information [e.g. watermark level] embedded in one or more values [e.g. watermark level values] received in one or more encoded data [e.g. encoded or compressed video data] transmitted within a stream of encoded data [e.g. FIG. 1-3; TABLEs 1-3; compressed video data; the watermark may be embedded at an encoding device site and detected later at a decoding device site], wherein said values are associated with transformed coefficients [e.g. DCT coefficients] intended to be processed by a decoder [e.g. decoder] for deriving elements of the signal [e.g. FIG. 1-3], wherein said information comprises an indication of watermarking information associated with the signal [e.g. FIG. 2-3; obtaining the watermarked level].
It is noted that MEGÍAS differs to the present invention in that MEGÍAS fails to explicitly disclose one or more encoded layers.
However, Demos teaches the well-known concept of one or more layered encoded data [e.g. layered compression to support flexible watermarking techniques].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the watermarking videos system disclosed by MEGÍAS to exploit the well-known layered encoding technique taught by Demos as above, in order to provide image compression at high frame rates with high quality for flexible encryption and watermarking techniques [See Demos: column 2 lines 48-57].
Regarding claim 3, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the one or more values [e.g. MEGÍAS: watermarked levels] are interpreted by the decoder to derive said information rather than to derive values of transformed coefficients [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3].
Regarding claim 4, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the signal is encoded by means of a tier-based hierarchical format [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: watermarking preferably is applied in portions of the decoding unit chain which are near the end of the hierarchy of units, to yield a minimum impact on each frame within a group of frames].
Regarding claim 5, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the embedded signaling is included in a residual layer at a resolution lower than the full resolution of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 10].
Regarding claim 6, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose at least one of the signal decoding operations performed based on the embedded signaling is performed in-loop on an intermediate rendition of the signal at a resolution lower than full resolution [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 9-10].
Regarding claim 7, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the decoder selectively implements signal decoding operations based on a target level of processing power or battery power consumption to be used by the decoder device [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; reduced power consumption].
Regarding claim 8, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the watermarking information indicates that the decoder should initiate application of a watermarking operation [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; detectable watermarking] to the decoded signal .
Regarding claim 9, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the watermarking information comprises compliance information associated with the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14].
Regarding claim 10, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the compliance information comprises any of the following information: the way the signal has been generated [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14], the specific encoder version with which the signal has been generated, the licensing information associated with the signal and/or the encoder version which has generated the signal [e.g. Demos: selected format at rate of 24Hz, 30Hz to encode and decode].
Regarding claim 11, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose upon decoding said watermarking information, prompting the decoder to initiate a compliance process on the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14], wherein the compliance process comprises initiating interruption of a display of the signal [e.g. Demos: selecting a possible display format from a menu].
Regarding claim 12, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the compliance process comprises initiating interruption of a display of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14; selecting a possible display format from a menu].
Regarding claim 13, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the watermarking information comprises a tag associated with one or more elements of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; detecting authorized user to watch the video by a key K; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; proper keys are applied to an authorized decryption system].
Regarding claim 14, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the tag comprises identification of whether an element of the signal can be selected by an end user of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; detecting authorized user to watch the video by a key K; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; proper keys are applied to an authorized decryption system].
Regarding claim 18, this is an encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 21, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGÍAS et al (US 20200043120 A1) in view of Demos (US 6957350 B1) and Srinivasan (US 20070300066 A1).
Regarding claim 15, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the tag identifies authorized user to watch the video by a key K, but MEGÍAS and Demos fails to explicitly disclose the detail action of an end-user
However, Srinivasan teaches the well-known concept of the tag identifies: whether an element of the signal is linked to an action to be taken by the end user of the signal [e.g. FIG. 1; the viewer controls to select a desired channel to watch].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the watermarking videos system disclosed by MEGÍAS to exploit the well-known layered encoding technique taught by Demos and embedding a watermark in a compressed video stream technique taught by Srinivasan as above, in order to provide image compression at high frame rates with high quality for flexible encryption and watermarking techniques [See Demos: column 2 lines 48-57] and identify a compressed digital data stream [See Srinivasan; abstract].
Regarding claim 16, MEGÍAS, Demos and Srinivasan further disclose said action comprises clicking on said element [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; detecting authorized user to watch the video by a key K; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; proper keys are applied to an authorized decryption system; Srinivasan: control device].
Regarding claim 17, MEGÍAS, Demos and Srinivasan further disclose the tag identifies an element of the signal as belonging to a class of objects [e.g. Srinivasan: FIG. 1-2; the viewer controls to select a desired channel with certain format to watch].
Regarding claim 19, MEGÍAS, Demos and Srinivasan further disclose said encoding uses a tier-based hierarchical coding method [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: watermarking preferably is applied in portions of the decoding unit chain which are near the end of the hierarchy of units, to yield a minimum impact on each frame within a group of frames].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGÍAS et al (US 20200043120 A1) in view of Demos (US 6957350 B1) and Rothschild (US 20060114338 A1).
Regarding claim 20, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose at least a portion of the signal and the watermarking information are encoded with MPEG-2 “low complexity enhancement video coding” [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 3; encoder; Demos: FIG. 1], but MEGÍAS and Demos fail to explicitly disclose the signal is encoded with MPEG-5.
However, Rothschild teaches the well-known concept of the format in which at least a portion of the signal and the watermarking information are encoded is MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC ("Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding") [e.g. FIG. 1-2; [0029]; Mpeg-5] or SMPTE VC-6 ST-2117 .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the watermarking videos system disclosed by MEGÍAS to exploit the well-known layered encoding technique taught by Demos and embedding information in a compressed video stream technique taught by Rothschild as above, in order to provide image compression at high frame rates with high quality for flexible encryption and watermarking techniques [See Demos: column 2 lines 48-57] and securing information associated with the digital images and for verifying activities of a user [See Rothschild; abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rhoads (US 5748783 A).
Alattar et al (US 20040133427 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483