DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicants state that “While Applicants' original specification discloses some embodiments that use scan type (scan path) when removing dependencies, Applicants' original specification also supports other embodiments without scan path analysis by disclosing: position-based rules for removing dependencies without specifying scan type; application of position-based rules to any scan type; reduced dependency based on position in order to reduce checks / logics; and explicit statements that determining scan type may not be needed. See the above citations to paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0040], [0042], [0044], and [0054]. In view of Applicants' original specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that some of Applicant's disclosed "context selection dependency removal" embodiments include embodiments with "position-based context selection dependency removal without scan path analysis" as is required in claims 1, 8, and 15.”. The examiner disagrees. Examiner can’t find position-based context selection dependency removal without scan path analysis in the specification, however , Examiner found in specification par 0005, “analyzing neighboring frequency position of a coefficient within a transform unit of a bin, removing dependencies of context selection based on the scan type and position of location being encoded in a transform”, par 0054, “wherein the method 1900 determines which neighbor processed most recently based on the scan type At step 1906, the method 1900 analyzes neighboring position, At step 1908, the method 1900 removes dependencies of context selection for significant map based on the scan type and neighboring positions analysis”, par 0055, “The apparatus includes a means for determining scan type, a means for determining position within transform unit, means for analyzing neighboring positions, means based on the scan of determining neighbors what would most recently be processed, means for removing such dependency from consideration when processing a video”. In specification, it discloses identifying removed bins based on scan type and scan path, does not disclose how to remove bins with considered scan type and scan path (without scan type and scan type, it is impossible to determine of dependent bins), so the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) would be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitation “performing, by the at least one processor, position-based context selection dependency removal without scan path analysis”.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection. Support was not found for these new limitations in the original specification. MPEP 2163 II A (b) states “To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, or 365(c), each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.”
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitation “performing, by the at least one processor, position-based context selection dependency removal without scan path analysis”, which, as discussed above, do not have support within the specification, on the contrary, in specification, it disclose performing, by the at least one processor, position-based context selection dependency removal with scan path analysis (par 0054 and Fig 19, “the method 1900 determine position with transform unit, wherein the method 1900 determines which neighbor processed most recently based on the scan type At step 1906, the method 1900 analyzes neighboring position. At step 1908, the method 1900 removes dependencies of context selection for significant map based on the scan type and neighboring positions analysis”). It is unclear to the examiner how to remove bins without identifying these bins in the scan path. As the examiner is unable to find any support for these limitations in the specification, it is impossible for the examiner to derive clarity through the specification, leaving these limitations indefinite, as it is not apparent how the limitations relate to the invention. Therefore the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Jin Ge whose telephone number is (571)272-5556. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 to 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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
JIN . GE
Examiner
Art Unit 2619
/JIN GE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619