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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim at this time.
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, 13-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,297,365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “downscaling” from the parent has been broadened to “scaling” in the instant application, resulting in the instant application having scope overlapping the parent’s scope.
Claims 1, 13-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,357. Although the claims at issue are not identical, every claimed limitation in the instant application is patented in the corresponding claim of the parent, resulting in the instant application having scope overlapping the parent’s scope.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the grounds provided for Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) in view of Winkler (US 2011/0169963) and Bilobrov (US PG Publication 2017/0372142).
Regarding Claim 1, Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) discloses a method (detecting stream-switch events, Column 19 lines 40-45) comprising:
obtaining, by the processing system (media client 104 receives media content, a signal STREAMING_MEDIA through network 110, Column 7 lines 40-55), a first recorded frame (first frame of STREAMING_MEDIA, inferred from Column 7 lines 40-55) of a first variant (e.g., a first operating point, inferred from Column 7 lines 15-30) of a plurality of variants (all available operating points, Column 7 lines 15-30) associated with the reference copy of the video (absolute highest quality level, Column 27 line 1), wherein the plurality of variants comprises a plurality of copies of the video encoded at different bitrates (adaptive bit rate streaming based on video operating points characteristics such as bit rate, Column 5 lines 35-45).
Kordasiewicz does not disclose, but Winkler (US 2011/0169963) teaches, a method (video quality measurement system of Figs. 1A -1B implementing the three steps of temporal alignment of videos, spatial scaling, and detecting luminance gains and offsets by minimizing MSE between blocks from the two videos [0018]-[0019]) comprising:
obtaining (reference video file is stored in storage unit 120 [0020], [0022], Fig. 1A, 1B), by a processing system including at least one processor (computer system 100, a conventional computer having a processing unit [0019]), a [] version of a reference copy of a video (a reference video file 115 stored in storage unit 120 [0020]), comprising … a plurality of frames of the reference copy of the video (frames [0020]);
obtaining, by the processing system (video decoder 112, which is an instantiation of computer 100, decodes the test video stream from the video data and decoded frames from the test video stream is stored in test video frame buffer 114 [0022]], Fig. 1B), a first recorded frame (decoded frames from the test video stream is stored in test video frame buffer 114 [0022]], Fig. 1B) … associated with the reference copy of the video (reference video is used to measure the quality of the test video, Abstract);
calculating, by the processing system (alignment module 130 of computer 100 performs… [0021], Figs. 1A-1B), a first plurality of image distances (pixel differences, e.g., mean square error [0026]) between the first recorded frame (video A, [0026]) and the plurality of frames (constrained temporal search space, e.g., +/- 30 frames [0027]) of the reference copy of the video (video B [0027]);
and determining, by the processing system, a first frame index (Frame No. N [0025]) of the first recorded frame (test video stream [0022]) in accordance with a first least image distance (matches are based on pixel differences, e.g., mean square error; the best match is the one with the lowest mean square error [0026]) from among the first plurality of image distances that is calculated (across the search space [0026]; search space constraints in [0027]).
Winkler does not disclose but Bilobrov (US PG Publication 2017/0372142) teaches a scaled version (thumbnail finger printed frame [0088], [0074]) of a reference copy of a video (reference content [0088]), comprising a plurality of scaled versions (thumbnail snapshots at one or more scales/resolutions [0074]) of a plurality of frames of the reference copy of the video (each finger printed frame of reference content [0088], Fig. 8B);
generating (obtain or generate [0074]), by the processing system (thumbnail finger printing module 308 [0074], implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of the two [0055]), a first scaled version (the thumbnail fingerprinting module 308 captures multiple thumbnail snapshots at one or more scales and/or resolutions [0074]) of the first recorded frame (test content [0088]);
calculating, by the processing system, … distances (compute a Hamming distance [0088]) between the first scaled version of the first recorded frame (thumbnail fingerprints of a test content item [0088]) and the plurality of scaled versions (thumbnail fingerprints [0088]) of the plurality of frames (each fingerprinted frame in the reference content [0088]) of the reference copy of the video (reference content [0088]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use the video alignment method of Winkler to measure quality of experience in Kordasiewicz because Winkler teaches that video alignment is needed for video quality measurement, and Winkler’s method can be performed continuously in real time (Abstract), improving efficiency of Kordasiewicz’s analysis system.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to match the frames of Winkler using thumbnail images because Bilobrov teaches that thumbnail image matching is successful for identifying matching content, despite there being distortions in the content being evaluated [0074], improving reliability.
Regarding Claim 13, Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) discloses the method of claim 1.
Kordasiewicz does not disclose, but Winkler (US 2011/0169963) teaches further comprising obtaining the reference copy of the video (computer 100 has a reference video file 115 stored in storage unit 120 [0019]-[0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use the method of Winkler to analyze the quality of the stream of Kordasiewicz because Winkler teaches that video alignment is needed for video quality measurement, and Winkler’s method can be performed continuously in real time (Abstract), improving efficiency of the video testing system.
Regarding Claim 19, Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations (software system, Column 12 lines 30-40). The remainder of Claim 19 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) discloses a device comprising:
a processing system including at least one processor (microprocessor, co-processors, a micro-controller, digital signal processor, microcomputer, central processing unit, field programmable gate array, programmable logic device, Column 18 lines 10-15);
and a computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations (software system, Column 12 lines 30-40). The remainder of Claim 19 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Claim(s) 14-16 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) in view of Winkler (US 2011/0169963), Bilobrov (US PG Publication 2017/0372142), and Li (US 2015/0023404).
Regarding Claim 14, Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) discloses the method of claim 13 further comprising: obtaining a plurality of recorded frames for at least a portion of the plurality of variants (stream switch event indicating a switch between operating points has occurred during streaming, a single, identical media session with a large variety and number of operating point changes, Column 25 line 64 – Column 26 line 20) associated with the reference copy of the video (absolute highest quality level, Column 27 line 1).
Kordasiewicz does not disclose, but Li (US 2015/0023404) teaches and calculating image distances (PSNR/MSE [0021]) between the plurality of recorded frames of the at least the portion of the plurality of variants (each quality level [0021]) and respective corresponding frames of the reference copy of the video having same frame indexes (inherent: PSNR and MSE are full-reference objective measures, therefore, a reference frame is inherently included in the disclosed method).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to detect the stream_switch event in Kordasiewicz using explicit indication of quality such as PSNR, as in Li, because Li teaches that content delivery can be optimized using PSNR rather than average bitrate to inform the client of quality level [0016], improving the constant quality experience. Note that although Li does not calculate PSNR/MSE in the process of inferring quality (rather, it measures and explicitly indicates the quality), Li none-the-less renders obvious the act of inferring quality because its method is identical to the method of inferring quality. Li suggests that the PSNR /MSE of the quality levels are sufficiently distinct that they uniquely identify the quality level of the stream (i.e., “explicit indication corresponding to a quality metric such as …PSNR… MSE….”). Because there is a forward mapping from quality level to PSNR/MSE, there is also a backward mapping from PSNR/MSE to quality level.
Regarding Claim 15, Kordasiewicz (US Patent 9,191,284) discloses the method of claim 14.
Kordasiewicz does not disclose, but Li (US 2015/0023404) teaches further comprising:
calculating a first image distance between the first recorded frame (PSNR/MSE [0021]) and a first frame of the reference copy having the first frame index (inherent: PSNR and MSE are full-reference objective measures, therefore, a reference frame is inherently included in the disclosed method).
Li does not teach, but renders obvious and determining a variant of the first recorded frame in accordance with a closest match between the first image distance and one of the image distances for recorded frames of the at least the portion of the plurality of variants having the first frame index (Li renders obvious the act of inferring quality because Li’s method is identical to the method of inferring quality. Li suggests that the PSNR/MSE of the quality levels are sufficiently distinct that they uniquely identify the quality level of the stream (i.e., “explicit indication corresponding to a quality metric such as …PSNR… MSE….”). Because there is a forward mapping from quality level to PSNR/MSE, there is also a backward mapping from PSNR/MSE to quality level. This renders inferring quality form PSNR obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to detect the stream_switch event in Kordasiewicz using explicit indication of quality such as PSNR, as in Li, because Li teaches that content delivery can be optimized using PSNR rather than average bitrate to inform the client of quality level [0016], improving the constant quality experience. Note that although Li does not calculate PSNR/MSE in the process of inferring quality (rather, it measures and explicitly indicates the quality), Li none-the-less renders obvious the act of inferring quality because its method is identical to the method of inferring quality. Li suggests that the PSNR /MSE of the quality levels are sufficiently distinct that they uniquely identify the quality level of the stream (i.e., “explicit indication corresponding to a quality metric such as …PSNR… MSE….”). Because there is a forward mapping from quality level to PSNR/MSE, there is also a backward mapping from PSNR/MSE to quality level.
Regarding Claim 16, which repeats the steps of Claim 15 on a second frame, is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2227031 A2 – detecting skipped frames
US 20080253689 A1 – registration between test and reference video sequences
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights