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 .
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 9-16, 20, and 23-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11778210 and over claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12238312.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10-16 of U.S. Patent No. 1156396 in view of Tran (US 10547812).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are rendered obvious by the claims of the patent. Patent claims recite all limitations found in instant claims except “wherein the GPUs include at least one GPU of a first type which is a discrete GPU and at least one GPU of a second type which is an integrated GPU provided as a chip inside the CPU”.
However, Tran teaches wherein the GPUs include at least one GPU of a first type which is a discrete GPU and at least one GPU of a second type which is an integrated GPU provided as a chip inside the CPU (FIGS. 1A-1B and col. 4, lines 35-64; FIGS. 6-7).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to include wherein the GPUs include at least one GPU of a first type which is a discrete GPU and at least one GPU of a second type which is an integrated GPU provided as a chip inside the CPU in order to provide high performance and field upgradability (Tran; col. 4, lines 35-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-17 would be allowable if the double patenting set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the combination of elements “the system comprising resources for hardware and software decoding, wherein the resources for hardware decoding comprise a plurality of graphics processing units (GPUs) and the resources for software decoding comprise a video codec program module executable by at least one computer processing unit (CPU) core, wherein the GPUs include at least one GPU of a first type which is a discrete GPU and at least one GPU of a second type which is an integrated GPU provided as a chip inside the CPU, the method comprising: monitoring loads of the GPUs; for a decoding process, carrying out load balancing comprising: determining which GPUs are suitable GPUs based on an implementation request for the decoding process; determining a current load of each of the suitable GPUs; determining the suitable GPU as a potential GPU, when the current load of the suitable GPU is less than a threshold; when there are no suitable GPUs, then carrying out the new decoding process by software decoding using the video codec program module executed by the at least one CPU core; when there is only one potential GPU, then carrying out the decoding process on the GPU; and when there are more than one potential GPU, then the decoding process is carried out by one of the potential GPUs” with limitations taken in combination with others in the claims.
Slupik et al (US 10542233) discloses a system for processing operations of input video streams, the system comprising an input module, a stream type detection engine, a plurality of processing resources, a resource monitoring engine, an attribution module, and a dispatching module. The input module is configured to receive input video streams. The stream detection engine is configured to inspect the streams' headers as a key part of the payload detection action to positively identify the nature of a given stream and generate a stream payload analysis result. The attribution module is configured to determine which of any processing resources is available within the resource pool and be called upon to perform a specified processing task, such as decoding an encoded video input stream.
Neubrand (US 9525871) discloses intelligently decoding media data by receiving a request to decode media data from an application running on a computing device, receiving the request by a decoder decision module in media processing software also running on the computing device; and intelligently determining which of a plurality of media decoders to route the media data to for decompression. The plurality of media decoders may include a hardware media decoder and a software media decoder.
Lin et al (US 9,693,071) discloses a system for video decoding includes an interface, a set of cores, an allocator, and a load metric measurer. The interface is configured to receive a set of encoded video frames. The set of cores is configured to process data. The allocator is configured to determine an assignment of the set of video decoding modules to the set of cores. The load metric measurer is configured to measure load metrics for each module of the set of modules during decoding of the set of encoded video frames. The allocator is configured to determine a reassignment of the set of modules to the set of cores based at least in part on the load metrics.
However, the various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements that make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 5712727331. 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.
/BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482