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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,316. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Patent No. 12,363,316
Application 19/231,117
Claim 1: A network device apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
detect a plurality of video coded network abstraction layer (“NAL”) units of a video coded stream according to defined syntax elements of a determined video codec specification;
extract semantic information associated with the plurality of NAL units according to a syntax elements and semantic knowledge base defined within the determined video codec specification;
combine the extracted semantic information associated with the plurality of NAL units to form a plurality of feature sets comprising a plurality of NAL unit type parameters, the plurality of feature sets correspondingly synchronized with the plurality of NAL units that enclose the extracted semantic information;
determine an information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units based on a NAL unit type, a NAL unit size, and a hierarchical encoding of each of the plurality of feature sets without performing video decoding of the video coded stream; and
indicate the determined information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units of the determined video codec specification to a video coded traffic-aware transceiver for scheduling video traffic based on the indicated information-to-importance value.
Claim 1: A network device apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a processor that:
detects a plurality of video coded network abstraction layer ("NAL") units of a video coded stream according to defined syntax elements of a determined video codec specification;
extracts semantic information associated with the plurality of the NAL units according to a syntax elements and semantic knowledge base defined within the determined video codec specification;
combines the extracted semantic information associated with the plurality of NAL units to form a plurality of feature sets that is correspondingly synchronized with the plurality of NAL units that enclose the extracted semantic information;
determines an information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units based on the plurality of feature sets without performing video decoding of the video coded stream; and
indicates the determined information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units of the determined video codec specification to a video coded traffic-aware transceiver for scheduling video traffic based on the indicated information-to-importance value.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al. (WO 2008066257 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 2019/0075308).
Regarding claim 1 Jun discloses a network device apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a processor that:
detects a plurality of video coded network abstraction layer ("NAL") units of a video coded stream according to defined syntax elements of a determined video codec specification (a compositor header parser analyzing a NAL header and a slice header which are included in NAL units of the HP bitstream and the LP bitstream – [19]);
extracts semantic information associated with the plurality of the NAL units according to a syntax elements and semantic knowledge base defined within the determined video codec specification (a compositor header parser analyzing a NAL header and a slice header which are included in NAL units of the HP bitstream and the LP bitstream – [19]; Figure 10C shows compositor 900 extracting semantic information associated with the NALUs according to syntax elements and semantic knowledge base);
combines the extracted semantic information associated with the plurality of NAL units to form a plurality of feature sets that is correspondingly synchronized with the plurality of NAL units that enclose the extracted semantic information (Figure 10B shows compositor 1020 combining the information associated with the received NALUs to obtain a reconstruction which is synchronized with the NALUs).
However, fails to explicitly disclose determines an information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units based on the plurality of feature sets without performing video decoding of the video coded stream; and indicates the determined information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units of the determined video codec specification to a video coded traffic-aware transceiver for scheduling video traffic based on the indicated information-to-importance value.
In their disclosure Wei teaches a processor that determines an information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units based on the plurality of feature sets without performing video decoding of the video coded stream (obtaining a NALU type of the NALU and determining the importance of the NALUs based on a mapping relationship between a NALU type and NALU importance – [109, 125-126, 138]; Figure 5); and
indicates the determined information-to-importance value for each of the plurality of NAL units of the determined video codec specification to a video coded traffic-aware transceiver for scheduling video traffic based on the indicated information-to-importance value (split the data based on a mapping relationship between data importance and substream, then map data of the substream for transmission – Figure 5 and corresponding description).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wei into the teacings of Jun because such incorporation improves service experience of video users in a scenario of constrained transmission resources (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights