DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses claims 13-27 as set forth in the Applicant’s response filed on January 13, 2026.
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
In response to the Final Office Action of April 8, 2025, the Applicant, on July 1, 2025, filed a Renewed Petition Under 37 C.F.R. 1.182. On August 15, 2025 the Office of Patent Legal Administration dismissed the petition.
On January 13, 2026, a Second Renewed Petition was filed by the Applicant.
On April 16, 2026, the Second Renewed Petition was Denied.
The Examiner determines that in accordance with the Decision of April 16, 2026, the instant application will continue to be examined as a Bauman type non-provisional application, that is, a continuation application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 111.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant maintains that the Application is a continuation reissue and that the claims are identical to the claims previously presented on February 18, 2025 in reissue format that were not acknowledged1 or examined.
The Examiner notes that in accordance with the Petition Decision of April 16, 2026, based on the totality of evidence in the record, this application was properly treated as a continuation application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 111 and will not now be converted into a continuation reissue application. The Decision noted that this was a final decision on the petition.
The Examiner notes that as set forth below, the claims submitted on January 13, 2026 have been examined and considered.
The Examiner also acknowledges the Applicant’s comments regarding the treatment of the instant application as a continuation reissue and not a Bauman-type continuation. However, as set forth above, the Petition Decision of April 16, 2026 maintained that based on the totality of evidence in the record, this application was properly treated as a continuation application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 111.
The Examiner also acknowledges the Applicant’s argument with respect to Xu. In accordance with the petition decision, since the instant application is not a reissue continuation and since the filing of the instant application was not filed during the pendency of the US Patent Application 15/165,577 (US Patent 10,230,986) and since the instant application was filed more than one year after the publication of US Patent 10,230,986, then Xu US Patent 10,230,986 is considered to be prior art.
Bauman Type Non-Provisional Application
The instant application was identified, on filing, as a continuation of Application No. 17/200,761, which was is a reissue of US Patent Application No. 15/165,577 (US Patent No. 10,230,986). See the Application Data Sheet (ADS) and the first paragraph of the specification, which were filed on November 2, 2023 as part of the original filing of the instant application.
The mere fact that an application purports to be a continuation or divisional of a parent reissue application does not make it a reissue application itself because it is possible to file a 35 USC 111(a) continuing application of a reissue application. See In re Bauman, 683 F.2d 405, 409, 214 USPQ 585, 589 (CCPA 1982) (a patentee may file a regular continuation of a reissue application that obtains the benefit of the reissue application’s filing date). Accordingly, in order for a continuation or divisional of a parent reissue application to be treated as a reissue application itself, there must be an identification, on filing, that the application is a “continuation reissue application” or a “divisional reissue application”, as opposed to a Bauman type continuing application. Indicia that a continuation or divisional reissue application is being filed are:
A 37 CFR 1.175 reissue oath/declaration, which is not merely a copy of the parent’s reissue oath/declaration.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A specification and/or claims in proper double column reissue format per 37 CFR 1.173.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Amendments in proper format per 37 CFR 1.173.
A 37 CFR 3.73 statement of assignee ownership and consent by assignee
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
A correct transmittal letter (preferably Form PTO/AIA /50) identifying the application as a reissue filing under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An identification of the application as being “a reissue continuation of Application No. [the parent reissue application]”, or “an application for reissue of Patent No. [the original patent sought to be reissued] and a continuation of Application No. [the parent reissue application]”, or equivalent language that identifies the application as both a continuation and a reissue application2. The same applies for a divisional reissue application, with the word “divisional” substituted for “continuation”.
See MPEP 1451.
The instant application was not filed with any of the above-listed indicia of a continuation reissue application. Rather, the ADS and the first paragraph of the specification filed as part of the original application papers both identify the instant application as a continuation of reissue Application No. 17/200,761, which is a reissue of US Patent No. 10,230,986. Thus, the instant application was not identified, on filing, as both a continuation and a reissue application. Accordingly, the instant application:
Was processed as a 35 USC 111(a) continuing application of a reissue application. See the Filing Receipt mailed on July 18, 2023.
Will be examined as a Bauman type continuing application, i.e., a 35 USC 111(a) continuing application of a reissue application. See MPEP 1451.
As established by In re Bauman, a Bauman type continuing application:
Receives the benefit of the actual filing date of the parent reissue application.
Does not receive the benefit of the filing date of the patent sought to be reissued by the parent reissue application because the copendency requirement of 35 USC 120 is not met.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant Bauman type continuing application is March 12, 2021, i.e., the actual filing date of reissue Application No. 17/200,761.
In a Bauman type continuing application, the patent sought to be reissued by the parent (or grandparent) reissue application is available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(b) or AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1) with respect to the Bauman type continuing application if the parent (or grandparent) reissue application was filed more than one year after the grant date of the patent.
In this case, US Patent No. 10,230,986 (i.e., the patent sought to be reissued by the parent reissue application) qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(b) or AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1) with respect to the instant Bauman type continuing application because parent reissue Application No. 17/200,761 was filed more than one year after the grant date of Patent No. 10,230,986.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner finds that the Amendment to the Specification states that the application is a “continuation reissue of reissue patent application 17/200,761”. However, in accordance with the Petition Decision of April 16, 2026, the application is a Bauman type non-provisional application, that is, a regular utility application and not a continuation reissue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 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.
Claim(s) 13-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US Patent No. 10,230,986.
It is noted that the instant application and US Patent No. 10,230,986 share the same disclosure. As explained above, US Patent No. 10,230,986 qualifies as prior art under AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1) with respect to the instant Bauman type non-provisional application since the instant application was filed more than one year after the publication of US Patent No. 10,230,986.
Therefore, all claims are clearly anticipated by US Patent 10,230,986.
The Examiner notes that on January 13, 2026, the Applicant submitted a claim chart which identifies sections of the ‘986 patent that provide support for new claims 13-27. Therefore, the Applicant acknowledges that US Patent 10,230,986 provides full support for the pending claims.
The Examiner incorporates below the citations set forth by the Applicant for each corresponding claim as well as providing other citations as disclosed by the ‘986 Patent.
Regarding claim 13:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon an encoded bitstream, including at least one frame divided into individually compressed partitions, wherein the encoded bitstream is configured for decoding by operations comprising:
See the abstract (“a memory and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to read partition data information indicative of a partition location for at least one of the partitions, decode a first partition of the partitions that includes a first sequence of blocks, decode a second partition of the partitions that includes a second sequence of blocks identified from the partition data information using decoded information of the first partition.”).
See col. 1, lines 57-60 (“a method for decoding a stream of encoded video data including a plurality of partitions that have been compressed using at least a first encoding scheme”). See also col. 10, lines 4-5 (“wherein the first partition and the second partition have each been individually compressed”). See also col. 3, lines 1-13 and claim 1.
reading, from the encoded bitstream, partition data information indicative of a partition location with respect to the encoded bitstream for at least one of the partitions;
See col. 9, lines 37-40. See also the abstract (“read partition data information indicative of a partition location for at least one of the partitions”).
decoding, from the encoded bitstream, a first partition of the partitions that includes a first group of contiguous blocks;
See col. 9, lines 41-43. See also the abstract (“decode a first partition of the partitions that includes a first sequence of blocks”). See also col. 4, lines 39-59 (“each partition 36 includes contiguous macroblocks”).
decoding, from the encoded bitstream, a second partition of the partitions that includes a second group of contiguous blocks identified based on the partition location indicated by the partition data information; and
See col. 9, line 44-col. 10, line 3. See also the abstract (“decode a second partition of the partitions that includes a second sequence of blocks identified from the partition data information using decoded information of the first partition”).
outputting or storing a decoded frame including the first group of contiguous blocks and the second group of contiguous blocks.
See col. 10, lines 6-8. See also col. 1, lines 67 – col. 2, line 7.
See also col. 7, lines 14-19; col. 8, lines 17-30; Figs. 6A, 6B; col. 4, lines 39-59; fig. 4; col. 2, lines 3-7; col. 6, lines 35-49 and col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 5.
Regarding claim 14:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: decoding the first partition includes using entropy coding; and the operations include decoding the first group of contiguous blocks using prediction coding.
See col. 3, lines 47-53, fig. 3; col. 3, lines 56-58; col. 3, lines 62-66; col. 5, lines 8-16.
Regarding claim 15:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: decoding the second partition includes using entropy coding; and the operations include decoding the second group of contiguous blocks using prediction coding.
See col. 3, lines 47-53, Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 56-58; col. 3, lines 62-66; col. 5, lines 8-16.
Regarding claim 16:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the entropy coding includes context-based arithmetic coding.
See col. 5, lines 5-7.
Regarding claim 17:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon an encoded bitstream, including at least one frame divided into individually compressed partitions, the encoded bitstream generated by encoding operations comprising:
See the abstract (“a memory and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to read partition data information indicative of a partition location for at least one of the partitions, decode a first partition of the partitions that includes a first sequence of blocks, decode a second partition of the partitions that includes a second sequence of blocks identified from the partition data information using decoded information of the first partition.”).
See col. 1, lines 57-60 (“a method for decoding a stream of encoded video data including a plurality of partitions that have been compressed using at least a first encoding scheme”). See also col. 10, lines 4-5 (“wherein the first partition and the second partition have each been individually compressed”). See also col. 3, lines 1-13 and claim 1.
including, in the encoded bitstream, a first partition of the partitions that includes a first sequence of blocks;
See col. 9, lines 41-43. See also col. 4, lines 29-38 (“encoder 14 divides the compressed bitstream into partitions 36 rather than a single stream of serialized data”).
including, in the encoded bitstream, at a partition location with respect to the encoded bitstream, a second partition of the partitions that includes a second sequence of blocks encoded using information of the first partition, the second partition compressed independently of compressing the first partition;
See col. 9, line 44-col. 10, line 3-5. See also the abstract (“read partition data information indicative of a partition location for at least one of the partitions”).
including, in the encoded bitstream, partition data information indicative of the partition location; and
See col. 9, line 44-col. 10, line 3
outputting or storing the encoded bitstream.
See col. 10, lines 6-8.
See also col. 7, lines 14-19; col. 8, lines 17-30; Figs. 6A, 6B; col. 4, lines 39-59, Fig. 4; col. 2, lines 3-7; col. 6, lines 35-49; col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 5.
Regarding claim 18:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the encoding includes lossless encoding.
See col. 5, lines 5-8
Regarding claim 19:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the first partition includes contiguous blocks in at least a portion of a first row and at least a portion of a first subsequent row.
See col. 4, lines 39-54; Fig. 4; col. 7, lines 12-13.
Regarding claim 20:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the second partition includes contiguous blocks in at least a portion of a second row and at least a portion of a second subsequent row.
See col. 4, lines 39-54; Fig. 4; col. 7, lines 12-13
Regarding claim 21:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the first partition comprises blocks of two or more contiguous rows of blocks.
See col. 4, lines 39-54; Fig. 4; col. 7, lines 12-13
Regarding claim 22:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the encoding includes encoding the second sequence of blocks using context information from the first sequence of blocks.
See col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 3; col. 8, lines 24-30; Figs. 6A, 6B.
Regarding claim 23:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 22, wherein the encoding includes at least one of intra-frame prediction or inter-frame prediction on the second partition.
See col. 3, lines 47-55,62-66.
Regarding claim 24:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the encoding includes encoding the second partition with an offset of a specified number of blocks such that at least a portion of context information from the first sequence of blocks is available as context data for encoding at least one block in the second partition.
See col. 6, lines 35-49.
Regarding claim 25:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 24, wherein the offset is determined based upon size of the context.
See col. 5, lines 6-7; col. 8, lines 32,37-38.
Regarding claim 26:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the first sequence of blocks in the first partition and the second sequence of blocks in the second partition are derived from corresponding rows of blocks in two successive frames of the video data, and wherein the encoding includes: encoding at least one block in the second partition using information from a block previously decoded.
See col. 4, lines 60-65
Regarding claim 27:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the encoding includes context-based arithmetic coding.
See col. 5, lines 5-7
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 The Examiner notes that two sets of responses where submitted on February 18, 2025. The first response stated that it was in response to the Office Action dated September 18, 2024 and further stated that claims 1-20 were pending. The second response canceled claims 1-12 and submitted new claims 13-27. The second response noted that the submission is in accordance with reissue practice. The Examiner found that since the application was not a reissue continuation application, the first response was examined and considered. The Examiner notes that in response to filing of a request for continued examination, only claims 13-27 are presented. Therefore, these claims will now be examined and addressed herein.
2 In contrast, a Bauman type continuing application is identified as “a continuation of reissue Application No. [the parent reissue application], or “a continuation of reissue Application No. [the parent reissue application], which is an application for reissue of Patent No. [the original patent sought to be reissued by the parent reissue application]”. The same applies for a Bauman type divisional application, with the word “divisional” substituted for “continuation”.
Prosecution Insights