DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20100110287A1 (Liu)
US 20060262846 A1 (Burazerovic)
US 20220060619 A1 (Pinhasov)
Cristina GOMILA, et al., "SEI message for film grain encoding", JOINT VIDEO TEAM (JVT) OF ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG(ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 AND ITU-T SG16 Q6), May 23, 2003, (Fig.2 and its description; modeling based on reconstructed image)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the previous office actions claims 4 and 18 were rejected as to failing to further limit the independent claim.
In page 13-14 applicant indicated claim 4 has been amended and yet argued the original limitation. Also claim 4 remains original without any amendment.
In page 14 applicant argued
PNG
media_image1.png
106
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees, this is already in claim 1 in the following limitation
“a second encoding instance of including the estimates of parameters of the parametric model of noise in an encoded stream generated by second encoding the image”
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 dependents upon claim 1, these claim failed to further limit the claim 1. Claim 18 is claiming “perform the first encoding and the second encoding as part of a same encoding processing instance”, these claim is failing to include “wherein the first encoding and the second encoding are performed as part of different encoding processing instances” of claim 10. That is instead of two separate encoding processing instances it is claiming one encoding processing instance. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject matters
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 14, 16-17 are allowed
Claims 4 and 18 are not rejected under prior art
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights