DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/27/2025. Claims 1-7 have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for provisional application No. 61/810,638 filed on 04/10/2013.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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. 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. patent Application No. 18/386,156. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the claims cover substantially the same subject matter. The table below shows only a sample of how each of these claims is anticipated by claims such as claim 1 of U.S. patent application No. 18/386,156.
Instant Application
U.S. patent Application No. 18/386,156
Claim 1: A system for coding scalable video with a base layer and an enhancement layer having a higher resolution than the base layer, the system comprising:(a) an upsampling unit receiving base layer samples as an input to an upsampling process;(b) filtering the input base layer samples based upon at least one filter chosen from a plurality of available filters;(c) wherein a first phase offset is generated to select at least one of the filters used in the upsampling process;(d) wherein at least one of a luma phase offset and a chroma phase offset is used to determine the first phase offset;(e) further comprising:(i) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for column filtering based upon at least one column filter none of which are based upon any row filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(ii) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for row filtering based upon at least one row filter none of which are based upon any column filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(iii) wherein the at least one column filter are separable from the at least one row filter.
Claim 1: A system for coding scalable video with a base layer and an enhancement layer having a higher resolution than the base layer, the system comprising: (a) an upsampling unit receiving base layer samples as an input to an upsampling process: (b) filtering the input base layer samples based upon at least one filter chosen from a plurality of available filters; (c) wherein a first phase offset is generated to select at least one of the filters used in the upsampling process; (d) wherein at least one of a luma phase offset and a chroma phase offset is used to determine the first phase offset; (e) further comprising: (i) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for column filtering based upon at least one column filter none of which are based upon any row filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset; (ii) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for row filtering based upon at least one row filter none of which are based upon any column filtering filter for the luma phase offset and the column phase offset; (iii) wherein all of the at least one column filter are separable from all of the at least one row filter.
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, 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segall (US 2006/0268991) in view of Alshina (US 2015/0341661) and in further view of Pappas (US 2007/0189390).
Regarding claim 1, Segall discloses the following claim limitations: A system for coding scalable video with a base layer (Segall, paragraph 18 discloses base-layer (low resolution) encoding; in addition paragraph 90 discloses central processor may invoke and control execution of the interpolation module),
and an enhancement layer having a higher resolution than the base layer (Segall, paragraph 2 discloses the full-resolution and low-resolution video sequences go through two parallel video encoders, and are then output as an enhanced layer (high-resolution) coded bit-stream and a base layer (low-resolution) coded bit-stream; in addition paragraph 90 discloses central processor may invoke and control execution of the interpolation module),
the system comprising:(a) an upsampling unit receiving base layer samples as an input to an upsampling process (Segall, paragraph 2 discloses the full-resolution and low-resolution video sequences go through two parallel video encoders, and are then output as an enhanced layer (high-resolution) coded bit-stream and a base layer (low-resolution) coded bit-stream; in addition paragraph 90 discloses central processor may invoke and control execution of the interpolation module),
(b) filtering the input base layer samples based upon at least one filter chosen from a plurality of available filters (Segall, paragraph 46 discloses processors that execute functions; Segall, paragraph 21 and Fig. 2 discloses receiving data stream and generating low-resolution frames (base layer)),
(c) wherein a first phase offset is generated to select at least one of the filters used in the upsampling process (Segall, paragraph 6 discloses different adaptive up-sample filters adaptive to local image properties are selectively applied to different portions of a low resolution frame to generate a better up-sampled image. Selection between different up-sample filters is determined by a variety of different information available to both the encoder and decoder).
Segall does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations: (d) wherein at least one of a luma phase offset and a chroma phase offset is used to determine the first phase offset(e) further comprising:(i) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for column filtering based upon at least one column filter none of which are based upon any row filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(ii) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for row filtering based upon at least one row filter none of which are based upon any column filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(iii) wherein the at least one column filter are separable from the at least one row filter.
However, in the same field of endeavor Alshina discloses more explicitly (d) wherein at least one of a luma phase offset and a chroma phase offset is used to determine the first phase offset (Alshina, paragraphs 71 and 148 discloses the filter selector 12 may select different up-sampling filters based on phase shifts among up-sampling filters for generating a pixel value of the sampling position positioned between the pel unit pixels of the low resolution image (base layer)… a filtering result magnified by using a magnified upsampling filter).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Segall and Alshina to create the adaptive upscaling for spatially scalable coding with up-sampling in consideration of phase shift.
The reasoning being is to determine an up-sampling filter to accurately interpolate a sample value for each sampling position according to an up-sampling ratio (Alshina, paragraph 8).
Segall and Alshina do not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations: (e) further comprising:(i) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for column filtering based upon at least one column filter none of which are based upon any row filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(ii) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for row filtering based upon at least one row filter none of which are based upon any column filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(iii) wherein the at least one column filter are separable from the at least one row filter.
However, in the same field of endeavor Pappas discloses more explicitly (e) further comprising:(i) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for column filtering based upon at least one column filter none of which are based upon any row filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(ii) wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined for row filtering based upon at least one row filter none of which are based upon any column filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(iii) wherein the at least one column filter are separable from the at least one row filter (phase shifts (phase offset) is outlined above; Pappas, in paragraph 47 discloses luma row/column filters and chroma row/column filters).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Segall and Alshina with Pappas to create the system of Segall and Alshina as outlined above with luma column filters and chroma column filters.
The reasoning being a system and/or method that can readily adapt aspects of one compression scheme (e.g., MPEG-4) to another one (e.g., H.264) (Pappas, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Segall, Alshina and Pappas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are said determined only for column filtering (phase shifts (phase offset) is outlined above; Pappas, in paragraph 47 discloses luma row/column filters and chroma row/column filters). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Segall, Alshina and Pappas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are said determined only for row filtering (phase shifts (phase offset) is outlined above; Pappas, in paragraph 47 discloses luma row/column filters and chroma row/column filters). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Segall, Alshina and Pappas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein both the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are determined and included in the first phase offset, wherein the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset are specified for both row and column filtering (phase shifts (phase offset) is outlined above; Pappas, in paragraph 47 discloses luma row/column filters and chroma row/column filters). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 4.
With regard to claim 5, claim 5 lists all the same elements and features to claim 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 5.
With regard to claim 6, claim 6 lists all the same elements and features to claim 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Examiner’s note:
Machine readable media: when determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer. See section 2111.05 of MPEP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Comer (US 2005/0185937)
Regarding claim 7, Comer discloses a bitstream of compressed video data for decoding by a decoder, including a non- transitory computer readable storage medium storing the compressed video data, the bitstream comprising: (a) said bitstream containing data indicating first layer samples and said second layer samples as an input to said decoder; (b) wherein the second layer samples are determined based upon filtering the input first layer samples based upon at least one filter chosen from a plurality of available filters; (c) wherein the second layer samples are determined based upon a first phase offset being generated to select at least one of the plurality of available filters; (d) wherein the second layer samples are determined based upon at least one of a luma phase offset and a chroma phase offset is used to determine the first phase offset; (e) further comprising:(i) wherein the second layer samples are determined based upon the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset being determined for column filtering based upon at least one column filter none of which are based upon any row filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset;(ii) wherein the second layer samples are determined based upon the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset being determined for row filtering based upon at least one row filter none of which are based upon any column filter for the luma phase offset and the chroma phase offset; (iii) wherein the at least one column filter are separable from the at least one row filter (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481