Jump to content

Patent Application 18618814 - METHOD APPARATUS AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 18618814 - METHOD APPARATUS AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING

Title: METHOD, APPARATUS, AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING

Application Information

  • Invention Title: METHOD, APPARATUS, AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING
  • Application Number: 18618814
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-21T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2024-03-27T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2024-03-27T00:00:00.000Z
  • Examiner Employee Number: 88062
  • Art Unit: 2482
  • Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 1
  • 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
1.	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
2.	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.
3.	Claim 1-2 and 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/618,789 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because because ‘789 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-2 and 18-20 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.

4.	Claim 1 and 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/618,802 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because because ‘802 claims list all the features recited in claims 1 and 18-20 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.

5.	Claim 1 and 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/618,836 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because because ‘836 claims list all the features recited in claims 1 and 18-20 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.



Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6.	The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


7.	Claims 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are confusing and not understandable.  It is unclear what applicant means by “pinp,” “track carrying the bitstream,” “set of tracks,” or “track IDs.”  Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8.	The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.


9.	Claim(s) 1-4, 12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US 2019/0075351) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Hall”.
As per claim 1, Hall discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a media file of a first video and a bitstream of the first video (processing of stored media video data into a primary video stream, as explained in paragraphs 0098-0101), wherein the media file comprises a first indication indicating a first set of coded video data units representing a target picture-in-picture region in the first video (the file has metadata, interpreted as a first indication, indicative of a list of pixel regions/boxes, interpreted as first set of coded video data units, identified by software defining a desired/identified PiP regions, interpreted as target picture-in-picture region; see paragraphs 0068-0071, 0076, 0094-0096, and 0101), the first set of coded video data units being replaceable by a second set of coded video units associated with a second video (the first set replaced by other content pixels, interpreted as second set of coded video units, encoded in a secondary video; see paragraphs 0057 and 0076).
As per claim 2, Hall discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a spatial resolution of the second video being smaller than a spatial resolution of the first video (the size/resolution of pixels of the second video are smaller than the first; see paragraphs 0052-0053 and 0081).
As per claim 3, Hall discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a list of region identities (IDs) identifying regions in the first video (the first indication lists region identifying coordinates in the first video; see paragraphs 0066, 0076, and 0081-0082).
As per claim 4, Hall discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: for one region ID in the list of region IDs, replacing a first coded video data unit having the region ID in the first set of coded video data units with a second coded video data
unit having the region ID in the second set of coded video data units (replacing a pixel, interpreted as first coded video data unit, in the region ID of the first set with another content pixel, interpreted as second coded video data unit, with pixel-by-pixel coordinate masking (having) the region ID in the second set; see paragraphs 0076 and 0081-0082).
As per claim 12, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 2 and 15 are applicable for claim 12.
As per claim 17, Hall discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises generating the media file and storing the bitstream to the media file, or wherein the conversion comprises parsing the media file to reconstruct the bitstream (paragraphs 0098-0102 and 0105).
As per claims 18-19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 18-19; in addition, Hall discloses a processor and a non-transitory memory with instruction thereon (paragraphs 0098-0099).
As per claim 20, Hall discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a media file of a first video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (paragraphs 0098-0099), wherein the method comprises (the method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the media file (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight.  MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the media file (with the structure implied by the method steps).  The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A).  When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.  MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed media file in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the media file and provides no fictional relationship between the stored media file and storage medium.  Therefore, the structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data. 


Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10.	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.

11.	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.
12.	Claim(s) 5-7 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2019/0075351) in view of Aisu et al. (US 2009/0083856) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Aisu”.
As per claim 14, Hall discloses the method of any of claim 1, further comprising:
if the media file comprises a third indication indicating that the first set of coded video data units are…by the second set of coded video data units, determining a first region in a first video for the second video (if receiving a set of metadata (a third indication) indicating a boundary near the first set is problematic for occlusion by the second set, identify an appropriate/suitable region for overlaying (a first region in a first video) for the second video; see paragraphs 0059, 0068-0070, 0076, and 0104-0106); and 
overlaying the second video on the first video in the first region (overlaying the second video on the first region; see paragraphs 0103-0106)
However, Hall does not explicitly disclose irreplaceable. 
In an analogous art, Aisu discloses irreplaceable (impossible replacement (irreplaceable) flag (third indication) to provide replacing and adding secondary content to protected target content; see abstract and paragraphs 0004, 0090, and 0095). 
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the indication of Hall to include irreplaceable as taught by Aisu for the advantage of providing secondary content
without violating rights. This rationale applies to all combinations of Hall and Aisu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 15, Hall discloses wherein the media file further comprises position information and size information of the target picture-in-picture region (the media identifies boundary/coordinate arrangement and size information of the target; see paragraphs 0065, 0069, and 0075-0076), and wherein determining the first region comprises: determining the first region based on the target picture-in-picture region (determine the first region to coincide with the target; see paragraphs 0071 and 0075-0076). 
As per claim 16, Hall discloses wherein the position information indicates a horizontal position and a vertical position of a top-left corner of the target picture-in-picture region (the position bounds 2D (horizontal position and a vertical position) vertex coordinate locations (top-left corner) of corners of the target, see Fig 12 and paragraph 0076), and the size information indicates a width and a height of the target picture-in-picture region (the size indicates pixels on the bounding box (a width and a height) of the target, see Fig 12 and paragraphs 0054 and 0076).
As per claim 13, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 16 are applicable for claim 13.
As per claim 5-7, although not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one person skilled in the art to perform the claimed process since they are well known in the art (Official Notice).  Doing so would have been obvious in order to improve coding quality and efficiency.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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.





/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482                                                                                                                                                                                                        


    
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
    


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.