DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application 19/083,339 filed on 03/18/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,365 B2 in view of Aaron et al. (“Aaron”) (US Pub. No.: 2016/0295216 A1).
Furthermore, although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No.: 12,284,365 B2 claims:
Instant Application: 19/083,339
Note: bold and underlined fonts means same features between instant application and conflicting appl.
Conflicting Application: 18/371,927
→ now US Patent No.: 12,284,365 B2
Claim [1]: A method comprising: ingesting a video; deriving a set of video characteristics of the video based on metadata of the video; setting a threshold video viewing quality for the video; generating a set of bitrate-resolution pairs based on the set of video characteristics, each bitrate-resolution pair in the set of bitrate-resolution pairs characterized by: a bitrate; and a resolution predicted to yield a video viewing quality, exceeding the threshold video viewing quality, for viewers in a population of viewers predicted to view the video; and generating an encoding ladder based on the set of bitrate-resolution pairs.
Claim [1]: A method comprising: ingesting a video from a publisher; deriving a set of video characteristics of the video based on a set of metadata of the video; setting a target video viewing quality for the video; generating a set of bitrate-resolution pairs based on the set of video characteristics, each bitrate-resolution pair in the set of bitrate-resolution pairs comprising: a bitrate; and a resolution predicted to yield a video viewing quality, exceeding the target video viewing quality, for viewers in a population of viewers predicted to view the video; and appending successive bitrate-resolution pairs in the set of bitrate-resolution pairs to an encoding ladder for the video based on a quality-per-cost score of each bitrate-resolution pair in the set of bitrate-resolution pairs, the quality-per-cost score based on the distribution of audience bandwidths and a current set of bitrate-resolution pairs in the encoding ladder.
However, examiner notes that Aaron et al. (US Pub. No.: 2016/0295216 A1) teaches the unique limitations in the instant application regarding a method (fig. 6) comprising: ingesting a video (see fig. 6 unit 604); deriving a set of video characteristics (see fig. 6 unit 608, paragraphs [0036] and [0038], e.g. “time length and/or resolution”) ; generating a set of bitrate-resolution pairs (see fig. 3, e.g. “Table representing Bitrate/Resolution Analysis”, paragraph [0061]) based on the set of video characteristics (see paragraphs [0036] and [0038]); a bitrate (see fig. 3, e.g. “Bucket 1 → bitrate is 375 or 1050 or 3000”); and a resolution (see fig. 3, e.g. “bucket 1 of low complexity → resolution is 480 or 720 or 1080”) predicted to yield a video viewing quality (see paragraph [0029]); and generating an encoding ladder (see fig. 2 unit 118).
Therefore, it 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 could recognize the advantage of providing a method for generating video and audience-specific encoding ladders by modifying Chadwick’s teachings in the present US Patent No.: 12,284,365 B2 for the purpose of appending successive bitrate-resolution pairs in the set of bitrate-resolution pairs to an encoding ladder for the video based on a quality-per-cost score of each bitrate-resolution pair in the set of bitrate-resolution pairs, the quality-per-cost score based on the distribution of audience bandwidths and a current set of bitrate-resolution pairs in the encoding ladder, thereby improving compression efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 of the instant application would be allowable provided obviousness type double patenting rejections above is overcome.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katsavoundis (US Pub. No.: 2019/0379895 A1) discloses comparing video encoders/decoders using shot-based encoding and a perceptual visual quality metric.
Bountour et al. (US Pub. No.: 2002/0069265 A1) discloses consumer access system and methods for providing same.
De Cock et al. (US Patent No.: 10,547,856 B2) discloses constant-slope bitrate allocation for distribution encoding.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1220. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights