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 Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on April 21, 2026.
Claim 12-13, 15 & 21-33 pending in the instant application.
Claims 12 & 15 are amended.
Claims 1-11, 14 & 16-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-33 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026, page 9 with respect to the objection to the Abstract have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended Abstract recites, “[m]ethods, devices, and products for video coding/decoding and particularly for improving block level adaptive weighted prediction are described […],” in the abstract recites language in the alternative and is requiring the reader to go into the specification for further detail. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Therefore the objection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026, page 9-10 with respect to the rejection of claims 12-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully and are persuasive.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language, “[m]ethods, devices, and products for video coding/decoding and particularly for improving block level adaptive weighted prediction are described […]” in the abstract recites language in the alternative and is requiring the reader to go into the specification for further detail. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 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) 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karczewicz et al. (US 2022/0103816 A1) (hereinafter Karczewicz).
Regarding claims 29-33, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream of video data that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprises…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process are the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 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, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Karczewicz which recites in Paragraph [0033], memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data, e.g., output from video encoder 200.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as outlined above.
Claims 12-13, 15, 21-28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights