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.
Claims 1-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/375,667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are .
19/247,142,
Claim 1
17/806,364, issued as U.S. 12,375,667
Claim 1
A method comprising:
determining a scene change in a content item;
A method comprising:
determining a point within a content item based on a scene change;
determining, based on the point, at least one frame of the content item;
determining, based at least on a bitrate and the scene change, a first quantization value;
determining, based at least on a bitrate, a first quantization value;
determining, during encoding of a first portion of the content item using the first quantization value, a first duration associated with the encoding of the first portion of the content
item;
determining, during encoding a first portion of the content item using the first quantization value, a first duration associated with the first portion of the content item, the first
portion of the content item comprising the at least one frame;
determining, based at least on the bitrate and the scene change, a second quantization
value that is different from the first quantization value; and
determining, based at least on the bitrate, a second quantization value; and
determining, during encoding of a second portion of the content item using the second
quantization value, a second duration associated with the encoding of the second portion of the
content item.
determining, during encoding a second portion of the content item using the second quantization value, a second duration associated with the second portion of the content item, the
second portion of the content item comprising at least another frame of the content item.
Method claims 2-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over method claims 2-9, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12/375,667.
Device claims 10-18 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over method claims 2-9, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12/375,667.
Computer-readable medium claims 19-27 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over method claims 2-9, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12/375,667.
System claim 28-36 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over method claims 2-9, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12/375,667.
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 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “A computer-readable medium storing instructions”, which includes transitory media such as carrier waves, which is a signal per se, and not one of the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter- a process, machine, object of manufacture, or composition of matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-36 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art does not disclose or make obvious:
determining, during encoding a first portion of the content item using the first quantization value, a first duration associated with the first portion of the content item, the first portion of the content item comprising the at least one frame;
determining, based at least on the bitrate, a second quantization value; and
determining, during encoding a second portion of the content item using the second quantization value, a second duration associated with the second portion of the content item, the second portion of the content item comprising at least another frame of the content item.
The closest prior art, Kalva, US 2014/0198845 A1, discloses determining a perceptual importance of each frame and assigning each frame a PLI index in steps 230 and 250 of figure 2. Kalva also discloses that this frame importance information is fed to the encoder 270, which uses this information to make a quantization level selection for frames. Those classified as PLI are quantized to a higher degree, as disclosed in [0035]. However, Kalva does not anticipate or make obvious determining during encoding a duration associated with at least one frame that has an increased quantization value.
Although Kalva discloses experiments were performed to test the subjective quality changes using a sigmoid-ramping of the QP value, as disclosed in [0039]-[0040], there is no teaching or suggestion to determine a first and second duration, during encoding, of content item portions having an increased quantization.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights