DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 6 FEBRUARY 2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed “encoded data output” is information without a physical or tangible form (i.e., “data per se”). See MPEP § 2106.03(I).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0198842 A1 (hereinafter “He”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2003/0169932 A1 (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, He discloses a data communication system including a least one encoder (FIGS. 2A-2B depict a two layer codec system with FIG. 2A including layer0 encoder and layer1 encoder 230. [0035], “an encoding system for encoding video image data into bitstream”),
wherein the at least one encoder, when in operation, encodes an input signal received thereat into encoded output data (FIG. 2A, depicts layer video input transmits input to layer0 encoder and then outputting into layer0 bitstream. [0035], “the encoding system comprising: a) a first layer encoder that is configured to encode the pictures for the first layer to generate a first layer bitstream”);
(FIG. 1 depicts video encoder 105 transmitting base layer bitstream to video decoder 110 and EL video encoder 125 transmitting enhancement layer bitstream to EL video decoder 130. Note, the dashed lines in the arrows received at decoders 110 and 130 suggest a network; however, Li is relied upon to expressly disclose the network);
wherein the encoder is configured to employ an hierarchical data structure for representing data to be communicated from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder (FIGS. 1-2B disclose two layers, a base layer and enhancement later, where the enhancement layer builds on top of the base layer (i.e., hierarchical), and both layers are transmitted from the encoder to the decoder), wherein the hierarchical data structure includes a base layer and one or more enhancement layers with associated residual data ([0061], “a system (100) supporting at least two layers, a base layer and an enhancement layer, a reconstructed output picture of a base layer encoder (105)/decoder (110) can be processed by corresponding reference processing units (115, 120) and inserted into a reference picture buffer associated with an enhancement layer encoder (125)/decoder (130) prior to encoding/decoding a corresponding picture in the enhancement layer”), wherein the base layer is capable of providing a coarse rendition of the input signal at the at least one decoder ([0054], “the base layer may provide a first representation of a video signal in a lower resolution/quality”), and the one or more enhancement layers ([0054], “the one or more additional enhancement layers may provide representations of the video signal at an improved resolution/quality”) and their associated residual data are useable when received at the least one decoder to enhance the coarse rendition to render the input signal at a high level of quality than the coarse rendition ([0096], “for the residual coding mode, the prediction from the RPU (210 in FIG. 2A, 260 in FIG. 2B) will be subtracted from a source input (205 in FIG. 2A), and a difference (residual) signal is appropriately offset and clipped (240 in FIG. 2A) to be coded in the enhancement layer.” [0097], “An enhancement layer decoder (280 in FIG. 2B) can process an enhancement layer bitstream from an enhancement encoder (230 in FIG. 2A) according to a mode signaled by the enhancement layer encoder (230 in FIG. 2A) and can consider the offset and clipping (240 in FIG. 2A, 290 in FIG. 2B) used to prepare the residual signal.” Note, in FIG. 2B the decoded base layer (e.g., layer0 decoder output) can be used as a predictor for the enhancement layer (e.g., prediction at layer1 decoder) or added to the residual of the enhancement layer (e.g., the output of image to residual conversion 290)); and
the at least one encoder is configured to send base layer data of a given image frame to the at least one decoder to decode concurrently with the at least one encoder computing enhancement layer data of the given image frame to send subsequently to the at least one decoder, thereby reducing a latency of data communication arising when communicating from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder (FIGS. 2A and 7 disclose the base layer is first encoded and then subsequently the output is transmitted to both the base layer decoder (see FIG. 2B and 8) and to the enhancement layer encoder. Therefore, after encoding of the base layer, the decoder is enabled to decode the base layer while the enhancement layer is concurrently being encoded. [0052], “a base layer that can be decoded without referencing or depending on any other layer and one or more enhancement layers that build upon (depend on) a base representation provided by the base layer.” Note, Li additionally discloses the base layer is immediately transmitted when encoded and processed by the decoder, see Li, [0026], [0036], and [0042]).
He fails to expressly disclose wherein the data communication system is communicatively coupled to a data communication network, wherein the data communication network, when in operation.
However, Li teaches wherein the data communication system is communicatively coupled to a data communication network, wherein the data communication network, when in operation ([0031], “Each of the encoded layers, including the base layer 20 and any enhancement layers 22, 24, 26, produced by the encoder 10 are sent to a transmission scheduler 30. The transmission scheduler 30 acts as a gatekeeper to a data transmission channel between it and one or more decoders 40 (only one decoder shown). This transmission channel could be a bus within a computer, a LAN connection between two or more computers, or a connection between a computer and the Internet or another network”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a network as a data transmission channel for transmitting from an encoder to a decoder, as taught by Li ([0031]), in He’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify He’s disclosure, by incorporating Li’s disclosure, for transmission over a data network using minimal complexity (Li: [0001]) and because it is an obvious combination of prior-art elements to yield the predictability of transmitting a bitstream from an encoder to a decoder. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, He and Li disclose every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein the system is configured to spread data of a given Intra-frame of the input signal into a plurality of frame durations when communicated from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder ([0122], “Although it is possible that the entire layer be transmitted at one time, generally the layers can be thought of as being broken into packets prior to transmission and the packets reassembled into layers after transmission.” Note, frames at each layer are split between multiple packets when transmitted from the encoder to a decoder and as per He’s disclosure, encoding frames includes intra prediction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a frame that is intra predicted and split (i.e., spread) between multiple frame durations when communicated (i.e., multiple packets)). The same motivation of claim 2 applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, He and Li disclose every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein the at least one encoder is operable selectively to drop sending parts of data of the one or more enhancement layers and their associated residual data in response to bandwidth limitations arising in the data communication network ([0042], “Step 120 sends the coded layers to the decoder by first sending the base layer, and then sending the enhancement layers after the base layer has finished transmitting, provided there is enough bandwidth available. If there is not enough bandwidth available, in some embodiments of the invention, the uppermost enhancement layers can be dropped”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies to claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 12. Additionally, He discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon ([0175], “The software portion of the methods of the present disclosure may comprise a computer-readable medium which comprises instructions that, when executed, perform, at least in part, the described methods”).
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 2-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,975 (hereinafter “Patent ‘975”), claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,995 (hereinafter “Patent ‘995”), and claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,747 (hereinafter “Patent ‘747”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are entirely anticipated by each of the patents due to the broadening of the claim.
The following table exemplifies the similarities by contrasting the claims of the instant application with Patent ‘995.
Instant Application
Patent ‘995
Claim 2. A data communication system including a least one encoder,
Claim 1. A data communication system comprising: at least one encoder;
wherein the at least one encoder, when in operation, encodes an input signal received thereat into encoded output data;
wherein the at least one encoder, when in operation, encodes an input signal received thereat into encoded output data;
wherein the data communication system is communicatively coupled to a data communication network, wherein the data communication network, when in operation, communicates the encoded output data from the at least one encoder to at least one decoder;
wherein the data communication system is communicatively coupled to a data communication network that, when in operation, communicates the encoded output data from the at least one encoder to at least one decoder that is enabled to decode the encoded output data;
wherein the data communication network is configured to function according to joint source channel coding (JSCC);
wherein the encoder is configured to employ an hierarchical data structure for representing data to be communicated from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder, wherein the hierarchical data structure includes a base layer and one or more enhancement layers with associated residual data, wherein the base layer is capable of providing a coarse rendition of the input signal at the at least one decoder, and the one or more enhancement layers and their associated residual data are useable when received at the least one decoder to enhance the coarse rendition to render the input signal at a high level of quality than the coarse rendition; and
wherein the encoder is configured to employ an hierarchical data structure for representing data to be communicated from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder, wherein the hierarchical data structure includes a base layer and one or more enhancement layers with associated residual data, wherein the base layer is capable of providing a coarse rendition of the input signal at the at least one decoder, and the one or more enhancement layers and their associated residual data are useable when received at the least one decoder to enhance the coarse rendition to render the input signal at a higher level of quality than the coarse rendition; and
wherein the at least one encoder is operable selectively to drop sending parts of data of the one or more enhancement layers and their associated residual data to the at least one decoder in response bandwidth limitations, ghosting, interference and/or data errors arising in the data communication network;
the at least one encoder is configured to send base layer data of a given image frame to the at least one decoder to decode concurrently with the at least one encoder computing enhancement layer data of the given image frame to send subsequently to the at least one decoder, thereby reducing a latency of data communication arising when communicating from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder.
wherein the at least one encoder is configured to send base laver data of a given image frame to the at least one decoder to decode concurrently with the at least one encoder computing enhancement laver data of the given image frame to send subsequently to the at least one decoder, thereby reducing a latency of data communication arising when communicating from the at least one encoder to the at least one decoder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229604 A1 (hereinafter “Pfeffer”) – Discloses adaptively changing a level of quality for content to be transmitted to a client based on network conditions. See Pfeffer, ¶ [0003].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights