DETAILED ACTION
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 18/631,406 (“406 Reissue Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date is April 10, 2024 (“406 Actual Filing Date”). Because the instant reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The 406 Reissue Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 9,167,264 (“264 Patent”) titled “IMAGE DECODING METHOD, IMAGE CODING METHOD, IMAGE DECODING APPARATUS, IMAGE CODING APPARATUS AND INTEGRATED CIRCUIT FOR GENERATING A CODE STREAM WITH A HIERARCHICAL CODE STRUCTURE.” The application for the 264 Patent was filed on Dec. 22, 2014 and assigned by the Office US patent application number 14/578,794 (“794 Application”) and issued on Oct. 20, 2015 with claims 1-3 (“Originally Patented Claims”).
II. OTHER PROCEEDINGS
Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the Examiner's independent review of the 264 Patent itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds that she cannot locate any ongoing proceeding before the Office or current ongoing litigation. Also based upon the Examiner's independent review of the 264 Patent itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner finds that she cannot locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
III. PRIORITY CLAIMS
Based upon a review of the instant reissue application and 264 Patent, the Examiner finds that the instant reissue application claims domestic priority to 13/876,276 filed as application No. PCT/JP2011/005495 on Sep. 29, 2011, now Pat. No. 8,965,139 and to provisional application 61/387,541, filed on Sep. 29, 2010.
This reissue application is also continuation reissue application of 15/591,308, now US Patent RE47,510, 15/591,493, now US Patent RE 48726, and 17/392,637, now US Patent RE 49,991.
The instant reissue application does not claim any foreign priority.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is not on or after March 16, 2013, the present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
IV. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT
The 406 Reissue Application contains a preliminary amendment (“406 Preliminary Amendment”). The 406 Preliminary Amendment contained, among other things, “REMARKS” (“2024 Remarks”), a “Reissue Application Declaration by the Inventor” (“2024 Reissue Dec”), “AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION” (“2024 Specification Amendment”) and “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” (“2024 Claim Amendment”). The applicant has also submitted multiple information disclosure statements (IDS) including ones on April 10, 2024 and July 5, 2024. The information disclosure statements have been considered. The 2024 Claim Amendment added new claims 4-6 canceled claims 1-3.
V. STATUS OF CLAIMS
In light of the above:
Claims 4-6 are currently pending (“Pending Claims”).
Claims 4-6 are currently examined (“Examined Claims”).
No claims is withdrawn.
Regarding the Examined Claims and as a result of this Office action:
Claims 4-6 are rejected.
VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
A. Lexicographic Definitions
After careful review of the original specification and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Patent Owner, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how she is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
Processor: “(1) (A) (computers) (hardware). A data processor. (4) (A) A device that interprets and executes instructions, consisting of at least an instruction control unit and an arithmetic unit. See also: coprocessor; preprocessor. (B) A device that contains a central processing unit.” IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
Decoder: “1. A device or program routine that converts coded data back to its original form. This can mean changing unreadable or encrypted codes into readable text or changing one code to another, although the latter type of decoding is usually referred to as conversion.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
Parse: vb. “To break input into smaller chunks so that a program can act upon the information.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
C. Claims invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph
A second exception to BRI is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph (“§ 112 ¶ 6”). See MPEP § 2181 et seq. To invoke § 112 ¶ 6, a claimed phrase must meet the three (3) prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The following phrases will be analyzed to determine if the claimed phrases invoke § 112 ¶ 6. If a phrase invokes § 112 ¶ 6, the corresponding structure or materials will also be determined.
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, a general purpose computer is only sufficient as the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function. When there is a specific function to be performed, it is required that an algorithm for performing the function be disclosed, and the corresponding structure becomes a general purpose computer transformed into a special purpose computer by programming the computer to perform the disclosed algorithm. The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The Examiner has reviewed the Examined claims of the instant application and concludes that based on the three Prong analysis set forth in MPEP§ 2181 (I), the following limitations or functional phrases of the pending claims invokes § 112 ¶ 6.
(1) Functional Phrase #1
the circuitry performing:
determining whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit;
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
--“Functional Phrase #1” or “FP#1” as recited in e.g. claim 4.
The claimed functions of FP#1 is:
determining whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit;
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
--“Claim Functions of FP#1” or “Functions of FP#1.”
i. 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (A)
In accordance with Prong (A), the MPEP states:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (A) (emphasis added).
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase #1 does not use the phrase “means for.” The issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the claimed “circuitry” is a generic placeholder for the phrase “means for,” i.e., being applied as a generic means for performing the function. See MPEP 2181 I (C).
The Examiner has reviewed the specification and concludes that the specification does not provide a description sufficient to inform a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) that the term “circuitry” denotes sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase #1 does not use the term “means.” Therefore the issue arising under Invocation Prong (A) then becomes whether or not FP#1, including the claimed “circuitry performing [the claimed functions],” is a generic placeholder for “means.”
In assessing whether or not FP#1 invokes § 112 ¶ 6, the Examiner must not only consider the introductory phrase “circuitry,” but the entire FP#1. “In assessing whether the claim limitation is in means-plus-function format, we do not merely consider the introductory phrase (e.g., ‘mechanical control assembly' ) in isolation, but look to the entire passage including functions performed by the introductory phrase. [Emphasis added.]” MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Second, the Examiner has reviewed the original specification and drawings as set forth in the instant Reissue Application, general and subject matter specific dictionaries, and the prior art now of record to determine if FP#1 provides a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in this particular art that FP#1 denotes a particular structure.
Third, the Examiner finds that “circuitry” is structure. However the claimed “circuitry” as set forth in FP#1 has a particular configuration (i.e. it is configured for “performing [the claimed functions]”). In light of the claimed ‘configuration,' the Examiner concludes that the claimed “circuitry” is not a general purpose computer but a particular processor requiring special programming since the claimed “determining …” function as set forth in FP#1 cannot be performed by a general purpose processor or computer.
In light of the above, the Examiner concludes that the phrase “circuitry configured to execute instructions [and perform the claimed functions]” is a generic placeholder. Because “circuitry” is merely a generic placeholder, the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase #1 meets invocation Prong (A).
ii. 3-Prong Analysis Prong (B):
In accordance with the MPEP prong (B) requires:
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (B).
Based upon a review of claim 4, the Examiner finds that the function associated with Functional Phrase #1 is: Functions of FP#1.
Because Functional Phrase #1 includes the function expressly noted above, the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase #1 meets invocation Prong (B). Additionally, the Examiner notes that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the function within Functional Phrase #1 will have its ordinary and accustomed meaning.
iii. 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (C) requires:
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
MPEP § 2181 (I) — Prong (C)
Based upon a review of Functional Phrase #1, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase #1 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire Functions of FP#1. See also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 115 USPQ2d 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Because Functional Phrase #1 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function(s), the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase #1 meets invocation Prong (C).
Because Functional Phrase #1 meets the three prong analysis as set forth in MPEP §2181 I, the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase #1 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph.
iv. Corresponding Structure
“The step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” In re Aoyama, 656 F3d 1293, 99 USPQ2d 6376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) quoting Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333, 1334, [69 USPQ2d 1481, 1486] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is `corresponding' structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” In re Aoyama, , 99 USPQ2d at 6379 quoting Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210, [68 USPQ2d 1263, 1267] (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also MPEP 2181.
Based upon a review of the 637reissue application itself, the Examiner concludes that the corresponding structure for FP#1 appears a processor such as Ex 305 in Fig. 17 or Ex 355 in Fig. 20 which performs the algorithm as follows:
determining whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit (col. 3, lines 49-52, col. 11, lines 23-29, S25 in Fig. 9, the stored hierarchical layer information is compared with the hierarchical layer of the processing unit);
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit (col. 11, lines 30-38, Fig. 9; algorithm for the inter prediction and encoding with inter prediction is known in the art); and
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units (col. 11, lines 39-62, Fig. 9, algorithm for the inter prediction and encoding with inter prediction is known in the art).
(2) Dependent Claims
FP#1 in dependent claims 5-6 also invoke § 112 ¶ 6 because no further structure of FP#1 is provided in these claims.
VII. DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
A. RE49,991.
Claims 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 of US RE49,991 (“the 991 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
i. Claims 4-6 and claims 4-6 of the 726 Patent recite common subject matter;
ii. Claims 4-6 of the 991 Patent are encoder claims and claims 4-6 of the instant reissue application are decoder claims.
iii. As it is known in the art, encoder process is the reverse of the encoder process or vice versa and inter prediction is performed in both the encoder and decoder.
iv. Therefore claims 4-6 of the instant reissue application are obvious in view of claims 4-6 of the 991 Patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application
Claim 4 of the 991 Patent
An encoder for generating a coded stream which includes a coded picture including a plurality of sub coded units, each of the sub coded units including a plurality of sub prediction units, the encoder comprising: a memory; and circuitry coupled to the memory, the circuitry performing:
A decoder for decoding a coded stream to generate a picture, the coded stream including a coded picture including a plurality of sub coded units, each of the sub coded units including a plurality of sub prediction units, the decoder comprising: a memory; and circuitry coupled to the memory, the circuitry performing:
writing, into a picture header of the coded stream, a first flag which indicates whether a reference index is stored in a sub coded unit;
parsing a first flag which indicates whether a reference index is stored in a sub coded unit, the first flag being in a picture header of the coded picture;
determine whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit;
determine whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit;
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, parsing the reference index stored in the sub coded unit and decode the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which. (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, parsing reference indexes stored in sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and decoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
B. RE48726
Claims 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 of US RE48726 (“the 726 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
i. Claims 4-6 and claims 4-6 of the 726 Patent recite common subject matter;
ii. Claims 4-6 of the 726 Patent are decoder method claims and claims 4-6 of the instant reissue application are encoder claims.
iii. Implementing a method of claims 4-6 of the 726 Patent by an apparatus comprising circuitry and memory is obvious to an ordinary skill in the art and encoder process is the reverse of the encoder process or vice versa and inter prediction is performed in both the encoder and decoder.
iv. Therefore claims 4-6 of the instant reissue application are obvious in view of claims 4-6 of the 726 Patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application
Claim 4 of the 726 Patent
An encoder for generating a coded stream which includes a coded picture including a plurality of sub coded units, each of the sub coded units including a plurality of sub prediction units, the encoder comprising: a memory; and circuitry coupled to the memory, the circuitry performing:
A decoding method for decoding a coded stream to generate a picture, the coded stream including a coded picture including a plurality of sub coded units, each of the sub coded units including a plurality of sub prediction units, the decoding method comprising:
writing, into a picture header of the coded stream, a first flag which indicates whether a reference index is stored in a sub coded unit;
parsing a first flag which indicates whether a reference index is stored in a sub coded unit, the first flag being in a picture header of the coded picture;
determine whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit;
determining whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, parsing the reference index stored in the sub coded unit; decoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which. (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, parsing reference indexes stored in sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and decoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
B. RE47510
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US RE47510 (“the 510 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 4 and claim 3 of the 510 Patent recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim 4, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim 3 of the patent, and
Claim 3 of the 510 Patent recites “an identifier that parses said header to obtain said hierarchy depth information and uses said hierarchy depth information to obtain said reference index.” The hierarch depth information can be read as the first flag in claim 4 of the instant application.
Further, “determine whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit” in the instant claim 4 is obvious from “uses said hierarchy depth information to obtain said reference index” in claim 3 of the 510 Patent because using the hierarchy depth information to obtain said reference index requires “determining whether or not the depth information indicates the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit,” For example, if depth is 0, then the reference index is not stored in the sub coded unit.
Further, claim 4 also recites decoding “when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit,” which is known in the art. Further encoding is the reverse process of decoding and inter prediction is performed in both the encoder and decoder. Therefore claim 4 of the instant application is obvious from claim 3 of the 510 Patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application
Claim 3 of the 510 Patent
An encoder for generating a coded stream which includes a coded picture including a plurality of sub coded units, each of the sub coded units including a plurality of sub prediction units, the encoder comprising: a memory; and circuitry coupled to the memory, the circuitry performing:
An image decoding apparatus for decoding a coded stream, the image decoding apparatus comprising:
writing, into a picture header of the coded stream, a first flag which indicates whether a reference index is stored in a sub coded unit;
a receiver that receives a coded stream which includes a plurality of processing units and a header of the processing units, the coded stream having been generated by coding an image using inter prediction,
wherein the processing units include at least one processing unit divided into a plurality of sub-processing units in a multiple-level hierarchy in which the size of a sub-processing unit at one level is larger than the size of a sub-processing unit at a lower level, wherein the hierarchy includes a prediction unit that is a sub-processing unit at a level lower than the highest level, wherein a reference index necessary for decoding said prediction unit is stored in either said processing unit that is divided or a sub-processing unit at a level higher than said prediction unit, and wherein said header includes hierarchy depth information indicating the unit where the reference index is stored;
determine whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit;
an identifier that parses said header to obtain said hierarchy depth information and uses said hierarchy depth information to obtain said reference index;
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit; and
a decoder that decodes said prediction unit using said reference index.
wherein a reference index necessary for decoding said prediction unit is stored in either said processing unit that is divided or a sub-processing unit at a level higher than said prediction unit, and wherein said header includes hierarchy depth information indicating the unit where the reference index is stored (repeated).
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which. (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units.
a decoder that decodes said prediction unit using said reference index (repeating the previous limitations).
wherein a reference index necessary for decoding said prediction unit is stored in either said processing unit that is divided or a sub-processing unit at a level higher than said prediction unit, and wherein said header includes hierarchy depth information indicating the unit where the reference index is stored (repeated).
VIII. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under double patenting set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: FP#1 in claims 4-6 invoke § 112 ¶ 6. The prior art including Chen (US Patent Pub 2011/0194613) fails to teach algorithms associated with FP#1 of the listed claims each of which specifically comprises the following listed feature(s) with corresponding algorithms in the claims:
determining whether or not the first flag indicates that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit (col. 3, lines 49-52, col. 11, lines 23-29, S25 in Fig. 9, the stored hierarchical layer information is compared with the hierarchical layer of the processing unit);
when the first flag is determined to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing the reference index in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub coded unit by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identifies a prediction mode and (ii) the reference index stored in the sub coded unit is applied to all of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit (col. 11, lines 30-38, Fig. 9; algorithm for the inter prediction and encoding with inter prediction is known in the art); and
when the first flag is determined not to indicate that the reference index is stored in the sub coded unit, storing reference indexes in the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit and encoding the sub prediction units by performing inter prediction in which (i) each of the sub prediction units included in the sub coded unit identify the prediction mode and (ii) the reference indexes stored in the sub prediction units are applied to the sub prediction units (col. 11, lines 39-62, Fig. 9, algorithm for the inter prediction and encoding with inter prediction is known in the art).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
IX. CONCLUSION
A. Reissue Application Reminders
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicants are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
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.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
B. Suggested Examples: Preventing Both New Matter Rejections & Objections to the Specification in the Future
Applicants are respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicants decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicants to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicants are also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicants amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicants are encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicants choose to amend the specification, Applicants are reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicants have any questions on this matter, Applicants are encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
C. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to YUZHEN GE whose telephone number is (571)272-7636. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of reissue applications may be obtained from the USPTO’s “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.
/Yuzhen Ge/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferee:
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the instant patent, or in the prior art.