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 statement (IDS) was submitted on May 15, 2026, and September 4, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/041,880 in view of Segall et al., (Segall), U.S. Patent No. 12,574,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The table below shows a sample of how the claim is mapped to the claim of the related application.
Instant Application: 19/041,884
Related Application: 19/041,880
Exemplary Claim 1: (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for determining video
quality for streaming media implementations, the method comprising:
performing a denoising process to remove film grain noise from a source video
to generate a first comparison video;
generating an encoded video based on the source video.
decoding the encoded video to generate a decoded video;
generating a second comparison video based on the decoded video; and
computing a video quality score that represents a comparison between based
the first comparison video and the second comparison video,
wherein the encoded video is selected for transmission to a client device based
on the video quality score.
Exemplary Claim 1: (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for determining video quality for streaming media implementations, the method comprising: generating an encoded video based on a source video; decoding the encoded video to generate a decoded video; generating a comparison video based on the decoded video; and computing a video quality score that compares based on the source video and the comparison video, wherein at least one of the source video or the comparison video is processed such that both the source video and the comparison video are based on a same film grain, wherein the encoded video is selected for transmission to a client device based on the video quality score.
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsavounidis (Dynamic Optimizer-a perceptual video encoding optimization framework, March 5, 2018; applicant’s provided prior art) in view of Segall et al. (Segall), U.S. Patent No. 12574565 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Katsavounidis discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Katsavounidis discloses a computer-implemented method for determining video quality for streaming media implementations [e.g. FIG. 5; encoding image by video codec and determining RD], the method comprising: generating a first comparison video based on a source video [e.g. FIG. 5; input source video]; generating an encoded video based on the source video [e.g. output of encode box]; decoding the encoded video to generate a decoded video [e.g. output of decode box]; generating a second comparison video based on the decoded video [output of up sampling video]; and computing a video quality score that represents a comparison between [e.g. PSNR or VMAF]] the first comparison video and the second comparison video, wherein the encoded video is selected for transmission to a client device [e.g. streaming client] based on the video quality score [e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 5; page 17; it benefits both standalone bitstream creation, intended for downloading and offline consumption, as well as full bitrate ladder creation, used for adapting streaming]. However, Katsavounidis does not explicitly disclose performing a denoising process to remove file grain noise from a source video.
But, in the same field of endeavor Segall discloses a signaling film grain resolution system and method. Segall discloses performing a denoising process to remove file grain noise from a source video [see Segall, Col. 4, lines 51-67].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have incorporated Segall’s teachings of an encoder that may signal a plurality of sets of film grain parameters with the teachings of Katsavounidis for the purpose of performing a certain post-processing operations on the decoded video frame to enhance the fidelity of the decoded video frame for a display device.
Regarding claim 20, this is a system that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, with regards to the claim limitations of one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors …[see Segall, Col. 18, lines 57-67 and Col. 19, lines 1-40].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsavounidis-Segall in view of Oh et al (US 20080152296 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Katsavounidis further discloses generating the first comparison video comprises generating the encoded video comprises downscaling the source video [e.g. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; down sampling], and generating the second comparison video comprises upscaling the decoded video [FIG. 5; up sampling after decode]. However, Katsavounidis fails to explicitly disclose the details of generating the first comparison video.
However, In the same field of endeavor Oh teaches the well-known concept of generating the comparison video comprises denoising the source video [see Oh, FIG. 1; element 3; noise removal].
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 system disclosed by Katsavounidis to exploit the well-known video encoding technique taught by Oh as above, in order to provide to improve the natural appearance of an image [See Oh; [0022].
Regarding claim 3, Katsavounidis and Oh further disclose generating the first comparison video comprises: denoising the source video to generate a denoised video [see Oh: FIG. 1-2; noise removal]; and adding first synthesized film grain to the denoised video [see Oh: 1-2 and 5; film grain noise synthesizer may generate film grain noise].
Regarding claim 4, Katsavounidis-Segall and Oh further disclose generating the second comparison video comprises: adding second synthesized film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video; and upscaling the renoised video to generate the second comparison video [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; Oh: FIG. 1-3].
Regarding claim 5, Katsavounidis-Segall and Oh further disclose generating the first comparison video comprises: computing first film grain at a first resolution [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2; page 1-2; encoding parameters such as resolution/quality change; Oh: FIG. 1; [0022-0024]], wherein the encoded video has resolution equal to the first resolution; upscaling the first film grain to a second resolution to generate second film grain [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; Oh: FIG. 1-3], wherein the source video has a resolution equal to the second resolution [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 5]; and adding the second film grain to a denoised version of the source video to generate the first comparison video [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; Oh: FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 6, Katsavounidis-Segall and Oh further disclose generating the second comparison video comprises: adding the first film grain to the decoded video to generate a renoised video, and upscaling the renoised video to generate the second comparison video [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; Oh: FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 7, Katsavounidis-Segall and Oh further disclose the video quality score is computed using a video quality metric [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; VMAF or PSNR; page 9-10 and 17].
Regarding claim 8, Katsavounidis-Seagall and Oh further disclose the video quality score is computed using video multimethod assessment fusion (VMAF) [see. Katsavounidis: FIG. 5; VMAF].
Regarding claim 9, Katsavounidis-Segall and Oh further disclose generating at least a portion of a bitrate ladder using the video quality score [see. Katsavounidis: FIG. 1 and 5; VMAF; page 17; a bitrate ladder].
Regarding claim 10, Katsavounidis-Segall and Oh further disclose transmitting the encoded video to the client device based on the video quality score and a network bandwidth [see Katsavounidis: FIG. 1-2 and 5; page 1-2 and 17-18; Oh: FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 11, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Oh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [see Oh, [0065]; memory].
Regarding claim 12-19, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 2-6 and 8-10 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, regarding a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [see Oh, e.g. para. 0065 and Segall, Col. 19, lines 23-40].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights