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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/5/25 and 9/10/25 are in accordance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 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: “a transmitting device, configured to output” and “a receiving device, configure to receive” in claim 1, and “image source device to generate” in claim 7.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 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.
The limitation of claim 1 that recites, “wherein the transmitting device or the receiving device generates a reference image stream according to the first target image stream”, indicates that either the transmitting device or the receiving device is generating the stream. However, in the case where the transmitting device is generating a reference image stream, the last limitation of claim 1 becomes unclear. The last limitation of claim 1 reads, “wherein the transmitting device further receives the references image stream through the receiving device”. If the transmitting device is generating the reference image stream, then the receiving device would be unable to send the reference image stream to the transmitting device. Therefore, the last limitation of claim 1 is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0090985) in view of Maharana et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0114180), and in view of Jeong et al. (WO 2020/231176 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sun teaches an image data transceiving system, comprising:
a transmitting device (i.e., sending device 12 includes an encoder 20; may further include a video source 16 and a communication interface 22) (Fig. 1; para[0065]-[0066]), configured to output a first target image stream (i.e., sending device 12 to directly transmit the recorded video to the receiving device 14 in real time; Step 105: The sending device sends the third video to the receiving device) (Figs. 1, 4; para[0065], [0110]), wherein the first target image stream comprises a plurality of first target images (i.e., Step 102: The sending device obtains M first video frames and identifier information of N target frames based on the first video, where the target frames are video frames in the first video frames; Step 103: Obtain, from the second video based on the identifiers of the N target frames, related frames corresponding to the N target frames; Step 104: Recode the M first video frames and the N related frames to obtain a third video) (Fig. 4; para[0098]-[0109]); and
a receiving device (i.e., receiving device 14 includes a decoder 30; the receiving device 14 may further include a communication interface 28 and a display device 32) (Fig. 1; para[0071]), configured to receive the first target image stream and to decode the first target image stream to obtain a plurality of second target images (i.e., the receiving device receives the third video sent by the sending device; Step 106: The receiving device obtains the M first video frames and the N related frames based on the third video; the receiving device may decode the third video to obtain the M first video frames and the N related frames) (Fig. 4; para[0111]-[0113]);
wherein the transmitting device or the receiving device generates a reference image stream according to the first target image stream (i.e., Step 107: The receiving deice determines a reference image of each first video frame based on the N related frames) (Fig. 4; para[0115]-[0117]);
wherein the reference image stream comprises a plurality of first reference images generated by the transmitting device or a plurality of second reference images generated by the receiving device (i.e., Step 107: The receiving deice determines a reference image of each first video frame based on the N related frames) (Fig. 4; para[0115]-[0117]).
However, Sun does not explicitly teach
wherein data amount of the first reference images is less than data amount of corresponding ones of the first target images, and data amount of the second reference images is less than data amount of corresponding ones of the corresponding second target images;
wherein the transmitting device further receives the reference image stream through the receiving device.
In the same field of endeavor, Maharana teaches
wherein the transmitting device further receives the reference image stream through the receiving device (i.e., a network 114 includes any other hardware or software to facilitate exchange of data or other information between one or more video senders 102 and one or more video receivers 116; one or more receiver neural networks 124 can request 136 a new reference image 110 to be cached and sent as part of a set of new reference frames 132 from a video sender 102; note: the “reference image stream” would be sent to the “transmitting device” in the form of the request 136 for a new reference image 110 as part of a set of new reference frames 132 from the video sender 102) (Fig. 1; para[0091], [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Sun and Maharana because Maharana teaches improvements in frame selection to address bandwidth limitations of processing resources for video data, such as during video conferencing (See, for example, para[0001] and [0146] of Maharana). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sun with those of Maharana.
However, Maharana does not explicitly teach wherein data amount of the first reference images is less than data amount of corresponding ones of the first target images, and data amount of the second reference images is less than data amount of corresponding ones of the corresponding second target images.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeong teaches wherein data amount of the first reference images is less than data amount of corresponding ones of the first target images (i.e., the size of the reference image identified from the bitstream is smaller than the size of the current image 2100) (para[0336]), and data amount of the second reference images is less than data amount of corresponding ones of the corresponding second target images (i.e., the size of the reference image identified from the bitstream is smaller than the size of the current image 2100) (para[0336]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Sun and Maharana with those of Jeong because Jeong teaches improving the quality of a restored image by encoding and decoding an image while taking into consideration the size of the image (See, for example, para[0007] of Jeong). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sun and Maharana with those of Jeong.
In regard to claim 3, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Sun and Maharana do not explicitly teach wherein first image information contained in the first reference images is less than second image information contained in the corresponding ones of the first target images.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeong teaches wherein first image information contained in the first reference images is less than second image information contained in the corresponding ones of the first target images (i.e., the size of the reference image identified from the bitstream is smaller than the size of the current image 2100) (para[0336]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Sun and Maharana with those of Jeong for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Sun teaches wherein the transmitting device performs image processing to the first target images respectively to reduce the data amount of the first target images to generate corresponding ones of the first reference images (i.e., related frames corresponding to the N target frames are obtained from the second video based on the identifier information of the N target frames, where the target frames and the related frames have same identifier information but different image quality; the M first video frames and the N related frames are recoded to obtain a third video, where the third video is transmitted to a receiving device, and a data volume of the third video is less than a data volume of the second video) (para[0007]).
In regard to claim 6, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Sun teaches wherein the receiving device decodes the first target image stream to generate a plurality of second target images, and performs image processing to the second target images to reduce the data amount of the second target images to generate corresponding ones of the second reference images (i.e., related frames corresponding to the N target frames are obtained from the second video based on the identifier information of the N target frames, where the target frames and the related frames have same identifier information but different image quality; the M first video frames and the N related frames are recoded to obtain a third video, where the third video is transmitted to a receiving device, and a data volume of the third video is less than a data volume of the second video) (para[0007]).
In regard to claim 7, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Sun teaches wherein the transmitting device receives image data from an image source device (i.e., sending device 12, video source 16) (Fig. 1; para[0063]) to generate the first target image stream and the reference image stream (i.e., Step 107: The receiving deice determines a reference image of each first video frame based on the N related frames) (Fig. 4; para[0115]-[0117]), and the receiving device transmits the second target images to a display device (i.e., the receiving device may further render the super-resolution video, and then display the super-resolution video on a display screen) (para[0121]) so that the display displays the second target images (i.e., receiving device 14, display device 32) (para[0071], [0075]).
In regard to claim 8, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Sun teaches wherein the receiving device broadcasts the reference image stream (i.e., a broadcast receiver device) (para[0077]), or uses wireless transmission or wired transmission to transmit the reference image stream to the transmitting device (i.e., the sending device 12 and the receiving device 14 may include various apparatuses, including…a wireless communication device) (para[0063]).
In regard to claim 9, 11, and 13-16, the claims recite analogous limitations to claims 1, 3, and 5-8 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0090985) in view of Maharana et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0114180), and in view of Jeong et al. (WO 2020/231176 A1), further in view of Kondo (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0340395).
In regard to claim 2, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong do not explicitly teach wherein first resolutions of the first reference images are smaller than second resolutions of first target images, or frame rates of the first reference images are smaller than second frame rates of the first target images.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches wherein first resolutions of the first reference images are smaller than second resolutions of first target images (i.e., the resolution of the reference frame is smaller than that of the current frame) (para[0146]), or frame rates of the first reference images are smaller than second frame rates of the first target images.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Sun, Maharana, and Jeong with those of Kondo because Kondo teaches reducing degradation of the chrominance component in resolution reduction in order to improve transmission efficiency in image quality and bit rate (See, for example, para[0007]-[0008] of Kondo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sun, Maharana, and Jeong with those of Kondo.
In regard to claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0090985) in view of Maharana et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0114180), and in view of Jeong et al. (WO 2020/231176 A1), further in view of Barron et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0132769).
In regard to claim 4, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as discussed above. However, Sun, Maharana, and Jeong do not explicitly teach wherein the first reference images are black and white images, and the first target images are color images.
In the same field of endeavor, Barron teaches wherein the first reference images are black and white images (i.e., the reference image could be a black-and-white image) (para[0025]), and the first target images are color images (i.e., target information could take the form of an array of target values (e.g., target colors, target brightnesses, target object identifiers, target distances or disparities) that each correspond to a…location within the target image 150) (para[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Sun, Maharana, and Jeong with those of Barron because Barron teaches using image processing tasks such as filtering of the image data (e.g., to remove noise or artifacts), colorization of an image, or determining information about contents of the image (See, for example, para[0002] of Barron). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sun, Maharana, and Jeong with those of Barron.
In regard to claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights