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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraph [0084] on line 6 “third set of video artifac152ts” is written which should be corrected to better reference the third set of video artifacts;
paragraph [0103] on line 3 “embodiment. . In” is written which is unclear due to the double period;
paragraph [0121] on line 2 “may implemented” is written which should be rewritten as “may be implemented”;
paragraph [0121] on line 4 “resources. . In” is written which is unclear due to the double period;
paragraph [0151] on line 5 “FIG. 911A” is written, however, there is no FIG. 911A;
paragraph [0157] line 1 is written “FIG. 12are” which needs correction; and
paragraph [0157] line 1 is written “FIG. 12is” which needs correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 on line 2 claims “comparing, using the processing device,” in which “the processing device” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and which as a whole is ambiguous as to the actor of the claimed “comparing, using the processing device” since in parent claim 9 the actor is very specifically claimed as “one or more processors” in the claimed “one or more processors to perform operations comprising”. Amending claim 16 on line 2 from “comparing, using the processing device,” to “comparing, using the one or more processors,” is one way to solve this indefinite issue.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raniwala et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0253182, describes removing from generative video jitter, ghosting, and banding effects, refer to paragraphs [0008] and [0056].
Babbar et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0273925, describes an automated system and method detecting macroblocks or other visual artifacts in a video stream by employing a neural network to analyze the video frames in the video stream and the neural network can be readily trained to detect visual artifacts in a different environment (e.g., video having a different resolution or number of frames per second, video decoded using a different decoding protocol, etc.), refer to paragraph [0011].
Kapoor, US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0260270, describes a system for encoding video, refer to the Abstract, paragraph [0009], and claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 17. Kapoor describes an encoder for generating a first version of encoded video based on a first encoding parameter and at least one second version of encoded video based on a second re-encoding parameter. Kapoor describes a comparator for generating comparison data based on said first and said at least one second version for encoded video. Kapoor describes a user interface for displaying the first and the at least one second version of encoded video and said comparison data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-8:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 1:
“determining, based on the comparing, that a difference between a first video artifact from the first set of video artifacts and a second video artifact from the second set of video artifacts satisfies a threshold criterion, wherein the first video artifact and the second video artifact have one or more similar characteristics; and
causing a user interface (UI) to display a first portion of the first video comprising the first video artifact and a second portion of the second video comprising the second video artifact.” (emphasis added).
Claims 9-16:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 9:
“determining, based on the comparing, that a difference between a first video artifact from the first set of video artifacts and a second video artifact from the second set of video artifacts satisfies a threshold criterion, wherein the first video artifact and the second video artifact have one or more similar characteristics; and
causing a user interface (UI) to synchronize a playback of a first portion of the first video comprising the first video artifact and a second portion of the second video comprising the second video artifact.” (emphasis added).
Claims 17-20:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 17:
“determine, based on the comparing, that a difference between a first video artifact from the one or more first video artifacts and a second video artifact from the one or more second video artifacts satisfies a threshold criterion; and
cause a user interface (UI) to synchronously display a first portion of the first video comprising the first video artifact and a second portion of the second video comprising the second video artifact.” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
