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 .
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE Response filed on 12/05/2024 has been entered.
This is a Non-Final Action responsive to communications: Applicant’s RCE Response and the Reissue Declaration Submission filed on 05/20/2025. Applicant’s RCE Response included an Amendment to the Claims, an Information Disclosure Statement, and Remarks. The Reissue Declaration Submission included an executed Reissue Declaration.
In light of the Amendment to the Claims, it appears that original claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-11 were newly amended; and original claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 were newly canceled. The Amendment to the Claims has been entered and made of record. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-26 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 are independent claims.
As noted below in the “Claim Objections” section, it is not clear from the Amendment to the Claims or the corresponding statement under 37 CFR 1.173(c) (see: Remarks, pp. 8-9) what changes were specifically made, if any, to previously newly added claims 15-28.
The objection to claims 1, 8, 13-15, 21, 27, and 28 (see: Final Action, pp. 4-5) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. 251 (see: Final Action, pp. 5-6) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the executed Reissue Declaration. The executed Reissue Declaration is proper and has been approved.
The rejection of claims 3, 9, 17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 251 (see: Final Action, p. 6) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The rejection of claims 3, 9, 17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see: Final Action, pp. 6-7) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see: Final Action, pp. 7-8) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see: Final Action, pp. 8-23) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
Specifically, the Examiner agrees with Applicant (see: Remarks, pp. 11-12) that the “image description information comprising parameters” previously relied upon in the Gorin reference is not stored in “a ‘meta’ box in ISOBMFF” (e.g., see: Gorin, Fig. 5: 521) as now required by each of the amended independent claims.
The rejection of claims 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see: Final Action, pp. 23-24) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,595,062 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 has been
considered by the Examiner.
Consideration by an examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing
more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search
files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of
search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08 or its
equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted
above (see: MPEP 609).
Claim Objections
Claims 15-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
37 CFR 1.173(c) requires that “Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.”
For example, (1) MPEP 1453(II)(D) states that “A new claim (previously added in the reissue) should be canceled by a direction to cancel that claim”, and (2) MPEP 1453(V)(D) states “Although the presentation of the amended claim does not contain any indication of what is changed from the previous version of the claim, applicant must point out what is changed in the ‘Remarks’ portion of the amendment. Also, per 37 CFR 1.173(c), each change made in the claim must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the change.”
In the instant case, Applicant has not pointed out what has changed regarding new claims 15-26. Additionally, prior new claims 27 and 28 have completely disappeared without being appropriately canceled as noted above. The Examiner notes that the original numbering of the claims should be preserved throughout prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. If new claims have been added to the reissue application which are later canceled before issuance of the reissue patent, the examiner will renumber any remaining new claims in numerical order to follow the number of claims in the original patent (e.g., see: MPEP 1453(V)(C)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-26 are 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “relating to one or more images or sub-images” in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “one or more images or sub-images” in lines 8-9 are the same as or distinct from the “single image or a sub-image of a single image” in line 6. Further amendment and/or clarification is required.
Independent claims 8, 15, and 20 are rejected on substantially the same rationale as disclosed above with regard to representative independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-12, 16-19, and 21-26 are rejected at least via dependency.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the box stored in the metadata part” while independent claim 1 recites “a metadata part, included in a ‘meta’ box in ISOBMFF.” This appears to be a contradiction.
Independent claim 8 recites the limitation “the selected image or sub-image description information” in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the prior method step is only selecting “image item information.” Similarly, line 18 states “sub image” wherein the proper antecedent should be “sub-image.” The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing is not permitted.
Independent claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the parameters are stored in boxes” in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “boxes” in line 14 are the same as or distinct from the “a ‘meta’ box” in line 11. That is to say, the parameters are part of the image description information which is already stored in the metadata part included in the ‘meta’ box. Further amendment and/or clarification is required.
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the box stored in the metadata part” while independent claim 15 recites “a metadata part, included in a ‘meta’ box in ISOBMFF.” This appears to be a contradiction. It is also unclear which box from independent 15 “the box” is referring to.
Independent claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the parameters are stored in boxes” in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “boxes” in line 13 are the same as or distinct from the “a ‘meta’ box” in line 5. That is to say, the parameters are part of the image description information which is already stored in the metadata part included in the ‘meta’ box. Further amendment and/or clarification is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam L Basehoar whose telephone number is (571)272-4121. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:30PM.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at 571-272-3744. 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.
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights