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
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,584.
US 19/023,576 Claim 1
US 11,770,584 Claim 1
A method for optimizing video on a device, the method comprising:
A method for optimizing video for transmission on a device based on the device's capabilities, the method comprising:
identifying an original video frame to be sent by the device;
capturing, by a camera associated with the device, an original video frame;
scaling the original video frame down to a lower resolution video frame;
scaling the original video frame down to a lower resolution video frame;
encoding the lower resolution video frame to produce a first layer output; decoding the first layer output;
encoding the lower resolution video frame using a first encoder to produce a first layer output; decoding the first layer output;
upscaling the decoded first layer output to match a resolution of the original video frame;
upscaling the decoded first layer output to match a resolution of the original video frame;
obtaining a difference between the upscaled decoded first layer output and the original video frame; and
obtaining a difference between the upscaled decoded first layer output and the original video frame; and
encoding the difference to produce a second layer output.
encoding the difference using a second encoder to create a second layer output, wherein the encoding to produce the second layer output occurs independently from the encoding to produce the first layer output.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 11, and 18 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, and 19–20 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–6, 8–11, and 13–20 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, 11, and 18.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,725.
US 19/023,576 Claim 1
US 12,231,725 Claim 1
A method for optimizing video on a device, the method comprising:
A method for optimizing video on a device, the method comprising:
identifying an original video frame to be sent by the device;
identifying an original video frame to be sent by the device;
scaling the original video frame down to a lower resolution video frame;
scaling the original video frame down to a lower resolution video frame;
encoding the lower resolution video frame to produce a first layer output; decoding the first layer output;
encoding the lower resolution video frame to produce a first layer output;
decoding the first layer output;
upscaling the decoded first layer output to match a resolution of the original video frame;
upscaling the decoded first layer output to match a resolution of the original video frame;
obtaining a difference between the upscaled decoded first layer output and the original video frame; and
obtaining a difference between the upscaled decoded first layer output and the original video frame; and
encoding the difference to produce a second layer output.
encoding the difference to produce a second layer output, wherein the second layer output is sent by the device only if requested by another device.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 11, and 18 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, and 19–20 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, and 19–20 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, 11, and 18.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights