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 11/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 is 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- 19039339: - Note* bold means different in instant application
Conflicting Patented case 12212781 B2
1. A method of encoding an input signal, the method comprising:
producing a base encoded signal by feeding an encoder with a down-sampled version of an input signal;
decoding the base encoded signal to produce a base decoded signal;
decoding the base encoded signal to produce a base decoded signal;
using a difference between the base decoded signal and the down-sampled version of the input signal to produce a first residual signal,
using a difference between the base decoded signal and the down-sampled version of the input signal to produce a first residual signal,
wherein the first residual signal is subjected to a transform that involves the encoder selecting between use of a N×N kernel and a M×M kernel for application against the first residual signal, such that the encoder, as a part of said selection, considers both the N×N kernel and the M×M kernel, and wherein distributions of both the first residual signal and a second residual signal have mass ranges that are within a threshold around 0, such that level 0 and level 1 enhancement streams have their masses at about a value of 0; and
quantising the first residual signal to produce the first quantised residual signal,
quantising the first residual signal to produce the first quantised residual signal,
wherein said quantising includes converting a division operation that involves a selected step-width into a multiplication operation that involves an inverse of the step-width and then applying the multiplication operation to the first residual signal;
producing a second residual signal by: de-quantising the first quantised residual signal to produce a reconstructed version of the first residual signal;
producing the second residual signal by: de-quantising the first quantised residual signal to produce a reconstructed version of the first residual signal;
correcting the base decoded signal using the first reconstructed version of the residual signal to create a corrected decoded version;
correcting the base decoded signal using the first reconstructed version of the residual signal to create a corrected decoded version;
upsampling the corrected decoded version; and
upsampling the corrected decoded version; and
using a difference between the corrected decoded signal and the input signal to produce the second residual signal.
using a difference between the corrected decoded signal and the input signal to produce the second residual signal,
wherein the input signal when encoded comprises the base encoded signal, the first quantised signal and the second residual signal.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (2014/0355675 A1) in view of Han et al (2006/0083303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method of encoding an input signal [e.g. FIG. 1 and 7-8; encoder], the method comprising :producing a base encoded signal by feeding an encoder [e.g. base layer encoder 554] with a down-sampled version of an input signal [e.g. signal from downsampler 553]; producing a first quantised residual signal [e g. FIG. 7-8; residual from + component] by: decoding the base encoded signal to produce a base decoded signal [e.g. signal from 556]; and using a difference between the base decoded signal and the input signal to produce a first residual signal [e.g. FIG. 7-8; difference between Pi from 526, 524 and Xi]; quantising the first residual signal to produce the first quantised residual signal [e.g. FIG. 7-8; residual encoder; [0056]; the error signal be quantized]; producing a second residual signal by: de-quantising the first quantised residual signal [e.g. difference between Pi and Xi] to produce a reconstructed version of the first residual signal [e.g. residual decoder 522 applying inverse transform and/or inverse quantization operations to reconstruct the refinement data]; correcting the base decoded signal using the first reconstructed version of the residual signal [e.g. signal from decoder 522] to create a corrected decoded version [e.g. FIG. 7-8; decoded signal from 528] ; upsampling the corrected decoded version [e.g. [0046, 0109-0103 and 0116-0117]; upsampling base-layer reconstruction]; and using a difference [e.g. error signal between Xi and signal from 524] between the corrected decoded signal [e.g. decoded signal from 528-526 then 524] and the input signal to produce the second residual signal [e.g. FIG. 4 and 7-8].
It is noted that He differs to the present invention in that He fails to explicitly disclose using a difference between the base decoded signal and the down-sampled version of the input signal to produce a first residual signal.
However, Han teaches the well-known concept for adjusting bitrate of coded scalable bitstream based on multi-layer at least comprising using a difference [e.g. FIG. 8; 122; transformation on residual frame] between the base decoded signal [e.g. decoded signal from 135] and a down-sampled version [e.g. downsampler 110] of the input signal [e.g. Input video] to produce a first residual signal [e.g. output].
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 coding system disclosed by He to exploit the well-known realizing signal to noise ratio (SNR) scalability in a video stream server technique taught by Han as above, in order to adapt a bitrate of a coded scalable bit-stream based on multi-layers, and transmit a video bitstream to a variable network environment [See Han; abs.; Fig. 8; [0048-0049 and 0051-0052]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SATO et al (US 20090016426 A1).
LASSERRE et al (US 20130230096 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