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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2026 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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims limitation are not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because all claims directed to a computer readable medium may encompass transitory signals. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC.htm#ref20
Amending to a “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media …” would resolve this issue.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13. 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RONCA et al. (US 20120147958 A1, hereinafter “Ronca”) in view of DeLuca et al. (US 20190156535 A1, hereinafter “DeLuca”).
Regarding claim 1. Ronca discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a content item comprising at least a first visual element and a second visual element (0018, 0027-0028 and 0031-0032; figures 1 and 3-6; “[0018] … the invention may then divide the source video into a plurality of chunks and allocate a portion of an encoding bandwidth to each of the chunks. The size of the portion allocated to each chunk may be based on the complexity of the chunk, relative to other chunks in the source video.”); and
causing the second region to be encoded (0018, 0027-0028 and 0031-0032; figures 1 and 3-6; “[0018] … the invention may then divide the source video into a plurality of chunks and allocate a portion of an encoding bandwidth to each of the chunks. The size of the portion allocated to each chunk may be based on the complexity of the chunk, relative to other chunks in the source video.”).
Ronca failed to disclose the method comprising:
determining, based on a motion parameter associated with the first visual element, that the first visual element moves from a first region of the content item to a second region of the content item, wherein the second region is occupied by the second visual element;
adjusting, based on an amount of the first visual element that is visible in the second region, encoder parameters corresponding to the second region; and
causing the second region to be encoded using the adjusted encoder parameters.
DeLuca, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a method comprising:
determining, based on a motion parameter associated with the first visual element, that the first visual element moves from a first region of the content item to a second region of the content item, wherein the second region is occupied by the second visual element (0030; Figures 3-4 and 7; “[0030] FIG. 3 is an exemplary display of an augmented reality object rendered on device 300 in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. … it is detected that a user's gaze is currently focused on a first object. The detecting is implemented by analysis of imagery captured by the user facing camera 218. … it is detected that an overlapping AR object is present that obstructs the view of the first object. In the example, there are two AR objects, including character 224 and text box 225. These AR objects 224 and 225 obscure portions of door 209 and window 211.”);
adjusting, based on an amount of the first visual element that is visible in the second region, encoder parameters corresponding to the second region (0047 and 0030; Figures 7 and 3; “[0047] … as the user moves his/her head or his/her body, the processor (102 of FIG. 1) periodically recalculates an overlap region of an AR object and the object it is obscuring. Based on a new set of overlap pixels, the opacity parameter (alpha) is adjusted accordingly. Pixels that were previously covering the first object but are no longer covering the object as a result of head motion have their corresponding opacity parameter reverted to its previous setting (e.g., opaque). ...”); and
causing the second region to be encoded using the adjusted encoder parameters (0047; Figures 3-4 and 7; “[0047] … Based on a new set of overlap pixels, the opacity parameter (alpha) is adjusted accordingly. Pixels that were previously covering the first object but are no longer covering the object as a result of head motion have their corresponding opacity parameter reverted to its previous setting (e.g., opaque). ...”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the DeLuca’s encoding parameter based on an image object being visually hidden behind another image object in the Video encoding of Ronca in order to yield predictable result of reduced bandwidth by encoding based on recognized objects for optimization.
Regarding claim 6. Ronca discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
allocating, based on a type of scene corresponding to the content item, first encoding parameters for the second region, wherein the adjusting the encoding parameters corresponding to the second region comprises modifying at least one of the first encoding parameters (0018, 0027-0028 and 0031-0032; figures 1 and 3-6; “[0018] … the invention may then divide the source video into a plurality of chunks and allocate a portion of an encoding bandwidth to each of the chunks. The size of the portion allocated to each chunk may be based on the complexity of the chunk, relative to other chunks in the source video.”).
Regarding claims 8 and 13. (New) One or more computer-readable media storage claims 8 and 13 are drawn to the computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claims 1 and 6. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 8 and 13 correspond to the method claims 1 and 6, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 15 and 20. The computing device claims 15 and 20 are drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 1 and 6. Therefore, device claims 15 and 20 correspond to method claims 1 and 6 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronca in view of DeLuca as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waggoner et al. (US 10728568 B1, hereinafter “Waggoner”).
Regarding claim 2. Ronca in view of DeLuca shows the method of claim 1. Ronca in view of DeLuca failed to show wherein the motion parameter is associated with speed.
Waggoner, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a method wherein the motion parameter is associated with speed (Column 3 lines 62-67; Figure 2; “(18) In certain implementations, encoder 235 uses visual elements metadata 215 to encode the video frame in a one pass encoding process, with or without lookahead. In certain scenarios, one-pass encoding emphasizes speed, which, for example, may be beneficial for real-time encoding during live event streaming.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate motion parameter is associated with speed in the frame of media content of Waggoner in the Video encoding of Ronca in view of DeLuca in order to yield predictable result of reduced bandwidth and improve encoding.
Regarding claim 3. Ronca in view of DeLuca shows the method of claim 1. Ronca in view of DeLuca failed to show wherein the motion parameter is associated with direction.
Waggoner, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a method wherein the motion parameter is associated with direction (Column 3 lines 62-67; Figure 2; “(18) In certain implementations, encoder 235 uses visual elements metadata 215 to encode the video frame in a one pass encoding process, with or without lookahead. In certain scenarios, one-pass encoding emphasizes speed, which, for example, may be beneficial for real-time encoding during live event streaming.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate motion parameter is associated with direction in the frame of media content of Waggoner in the Video encoding of Ronca in view of DeLuca in order to yield predictable result of reduced bandwidth and improve encoding.
Regarding claim 5. Ronca in view of DeLuca shows the method of claim 1. Ronca in view of DeLuca failed to show wherein the determining that the first visual element moves from the first region of the content item to the second region of the content item comprises:
determining that the first visual element comprises scrolling text.
Waggoner, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein the determining that the first visual element moves from the first region of the content item to the second region of the content item comprises:
determining that the first visual element comprises scrolling text (Column 8 lines 13-23; Figure 4; “(47) For example, with reference to FIG. 4, visual element 425a can correspond to a particular word, “bookkeeper” in the scrolling end credits. For video frame 405a, visual elements metadata 215 can include information such as the text string “bookkeeper,” the top left X and Y pixel coordinates of the word “bookkeeper,” the character spacing between each letter, the font size, the font type, uppercase or lowercase, stylization (bold, italics, underlining, etc.), and so forth”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the recognizing image objects comprises scrolling text in the frame of media content of Waggoner in the Video encoding of Ronca in view of DeLuca in order to yield predictable result of reduced bandwidth by encoding based on recognized objects for optimization.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 12. (New) One or more computer-readable media storage claims 9, 10 and 12 are drawn to the computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claims 2, 3 and 5. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 9, 10 and 12 correspond to the method claims 2, 3 and 5, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 19. The computing device claims 15 and 20 are drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 2, 3 and 5. Therefore, device claims 15 and 20 correspond to method claims 2, 3 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronca in view of DeLuca as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Camp, JR. et al. (US 20090096927 A1, hereinafter “Camp, JR.”).
Regarding claim 4. Ronca in view of DeLuca shows the method of claim 1. Ronca in view of DeLuca failed to show wherein the determining that the first visual element moves from the first region of the content item to the second region of the content item comprises:
determining that the first visual element comprises a human being.
Camp, JR., however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a method wherein the determining that the first visual element moves from the first region of the content item to the second region of the content item comprises:
determining that the first visual element comprises a human being (0059; “[0059] …. the object identification module 34 may scan the image for items that are recognizable and likely to be the items of interest to the user. Recognizable items may include, for example, a person's face, a person's body (e.g., a humanoid form), a car, a truck, a cat, a dog and so forth. For instance, a common face recognition technique is to search an image for color patterns that are indicative of a pair of eyes together with a bridge of a nose. If plural items are recognized, each of those items may be identified as the object. If a scene contains a relatively large number of recognized items (e.g., three or more items), the items may be prioritized based on size and/or location within the scene and a selected number of the highest priority items (e.g., three or fewer) may be identified as the object.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Camp, JR. teaching of encoding parameter corresponding high/low fidelity in the Video encoding of Ronca in order to yield predictable result of reduced bandwidth by encoding based on recognized objects for optimization.
Regarding claim 7. Ronca in view of DeLuca shows the method of claim 1, but failed to show wherein the motion parameter indicates that motion of the first visual element is unpredictable, and wherein the adjusted encoder parameters correspond to lower image fidelity.
Camp, JR., however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a method wherein the motion parameter indicates that motion of the first visual element is unpredictable, and wherein the adjusted encoder parameters correspond to lower image fidelity (0060-0061; Figure 7; “[0060] With additional reference to FIG. 7, an exemplary technique for varying the amount of compression across the video image is illustrated. In FIG. 7, a portion of a video frame 44 is shown. The frame portion 44 is broken into a matrix of pixel blocks 46. Each pixel block 46 may be a group of pixels, such as an N.times.N square of pixels where N is a number, such as eight or sixteen. An object 48 to receive lower compression relative to the rest of the image is shown. The image compression module 32 applies low compression to the blocks 46 that overlap with the object 48 to result in high fidelity for those blocks 46. Hence, the high fidelity blocks are identified with an "H" in FIG. 7. Similarly, the image compression module 32 applies high compression to the blocks 46 that do not overlap with the object 48 to result in low fidelity for those blocks 46. Hence, the low fidelity blocks are identified with an "L" in FIG. 7. …”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Camp, JR. teaching of encoding parameter corresponding high/low fidelity in the Video encoding of Ronca in order to yield predictable result of reduced bandwidth by encoding based on recognized objects for optimization.
Regarding claims 11 and 14. (New) One or more computer-readable media storage claims 11 and 14 are drawn to the computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claims 4 and 7. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 11 and 14 correspond to the method claims 4 and 7, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 18. The computing device claim 18 is drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 4. Therefore, device claim 18 corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims -------1-3, 6-9 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12452436 B2 as shown in the comparison table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. While the claims slightly differ in language, the scope is similar and is an obvious variant of language used. The difference being the current claims are broader in scope.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims -------1, 3-4, 7, 9-11 and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11985337 B2 as shown in the comparison table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. While the claims slightly differ in language, the scope is similar and is an obvious variant of language used. The difference being the current claims are broader in scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-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, Chris 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights