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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
As per Applicants argument that claims 1 and 10 as amended recite "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an encoded bitstream for decoding by a processor, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising.." These amendments clarify the functional relationship between the claimed subject matter and the computer system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claims 1 and 10 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream comprising data in compressed form, a signal indicating length of a first block and a signal indicating a length of a second block appear to describe the contents of the bitstream. These elements are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Additionally, the computer readable medium does not include an instruction to execute the decoding process by a computer. The limitation “for decoding by a processor…” is not positively recited and is considered intended use (MPEP 2111.02). Therefore, the limitation “for decoding by a processor” is not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0353113 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the recitation of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an encoded bitstream for decoding by a processor, the non-transitory computer-readable medium …” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is he deblocking process. 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 bitstream (with the structure implied by the deblocking steps). The structure includes the data in compressed form 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 bitstream in claims 1 and 10 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, 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 and is anticipated by Zhang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0353113 A1), paragraph [0021] where Zhang discloses, “…this disclosure is directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium storing an encoded video bitstream…”
Claim 2 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1.
Claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 5.
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14.
Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights