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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,863,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,289,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofigh et al. (hereinafter ‘Tofigh’, Patent No. 10,820,045 (prior publication, US 2017/0332142) in view of Thomas et al. (hereinafter ‘Thomas’, Pub. No. 2018/0295400).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Tofigh teaches a computer system (108, 106.1 or 102, Fig. 1) (with corresponding method and non-transitory computer-readable medium) the computer system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (Fig. 13; col. 10 lines 7-67) comprising:
encoding, by the at least one processor, an image of a video stream to produce an encoded video frame (102 and 114, Fig. 1; additionally, col. 2 lines 37-43; col. 5 lines 5-14, where if decoding is need, there was a corresponding encoding);
defining, by the at least one processor, metadata for the encoded video frame (col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50);
correlating, by the at least one processor, the metadata to the encoded video frame (col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50); and
placing, by the at least one processor, the encoded video frame correlated to the metadata in a frame queue (col. 4 lines 17-40).
On the other hand, Tofigh does not explicitly teach
wherein the metadata describes a location, a shape, and one or more boundaries corresponding to a substitution region of the encoded video frame.
However, in an analogous art, Thomas teaches a system for enhancing a region of interest (ROI) in video frames (i.e. enhancing color, increasing resolution to local pixels), including blurring or hiding faces, substituting objects, inserting visual information, etc. ([0084]; [0085]). Thomas teaches having metadata that describes the location, shape and boundaries where the substitution/enhancement needs to happen at a frame level on a video ([0040]; [0048]; [0084]-[0085]; [0089]; [0118]). The metadata is transmitted to the video receiving equipment for performing the changes at the specified sections/parts of the frame(s) as metadata (manifest file) ([0039]; [0046]-[0049]). The metadata file uses XML as shown on the different examples ([0114]; [0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tofigh’s invention with Thomas’ feature of using metadata describing location, shape and one or more boundaries corresponding to a substitution region of the encoded video frame for the benefit of enabling efficient enhancement of regions of interest.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Tofigh and Thomas teach wherein encoding the image of the video stream to produce the encoded video frame includes:
adding, by the one or more processors, an identifier to the encoded video frame (Tofigh: col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Tofigh and Thomas teach wherein the metadata includes one or more instructions for altering the encoded video frame (Tofigh: col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Tofigh and Thomas teach wherein the metadata includes the substitution image for a region less than an entirety of the encoded video frame (Tofigh: col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Tofigh and Thomas teach the computer-implemented method further comprising:
decompressing, by the one or more processors, the substitution image (Tofigh: col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50, where the image is enhanced through less compression); and
substituting, by the one or more processors, the substitution region with the decompressed substitution image (Tofigh: col. 3 lines 53-62; col. 5 lines 5-50).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofigh et al. (hereinafter ‘Tofigh’, Patent No. 10,820,045) in view of Thomas et al. (hereinafter ‘Thomas’, Pub. No. 2018/0295400) in further view of Gordon et al. (hereinafter ‘Gordon’, Pub. No. 2008/0170622).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Tofigh and Thomas teach all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach
wherein the substitution region includes one or more discontinuous sub-regions.
However, in an analogous art, Gordon teaches a system that substitutes portions of frames based on playlist information which maps regions to the frames ([0046]; [0074]; [0085]-[0088]). The playlist is an XML format ([0049]). Gordon teaches that the playlist maps contiguous and non-contiguous areas of the frame ([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tofigh and Thomas’ invention with Gordon’s feature of mapping discontinuous regions of the frame for the benefit of allowing multiple substitutions on the frame and easily locating independent areas.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Tofigh and Thomas teach all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein substituting the decompressed substitution image includes:
overwriting, by the one or more processors, at least one pixel of the region with a pixel corresponding to the decompressed substitution image.
However, in an analogous art, Gordon teaches a system that substitutes portions of frames based on playlist information which maps regions to the frames ([0046]; [0074]; [0085]-[0088]). The playlist is an XML format ([0049]). Gordon teaches that the playlist maps contiguous and non-contiguous areas of the frame ([0065]). Additionally, Gordon allows filling the areas with the pixels of the substituting element and extrapolating pixel values if they are not exactly the same size as the substituted area ([0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tofigh and Thomas’ invention with Gordon’s feature of overwriting (replacing/filling/extrapolating) pixels of the region with a pixel of the substituting element for the benefit of displaying the substituting element with its own pixel values and avoid distortions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights