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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 32-51 were previously filed. No claims have been amended, added or cancelled. Accordingly claims 32-51 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chang et al. fails to teach “wherein the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is signaled at a coding unit (CU) level”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 8, Chang et al. explicitly teaches “A method and apparatus for texture image compression in a 3D video coding system are disclosed. Embodiments according to the present invention first derive depth information related to a depth map associated with a texture image and then process the texture image based on the depth information derived. The invention can be applied to the encoder side as well as the decoder side. The depth information may include depth data and partition information. The depth map can be either decoded from a first bitstream comprising a first compressed depth map for a current view, decoded and derived from a second bitstream comprising second compressed depth map for other view, or derived from a decoded texture image. The encoding order or decoding order for the depth map and the texture image can be based on block-wise interleaving or picture-wise interleaving. The block-wise interleaving or the picture-wise interleaving can be selected according to a flag in a bitstream associated with the texture image. Furthermore, the flag can be incorporated in a sequence level, a picture level, a slice level, or a block level.” This clearly and unambiguously teaches incorporating a flag at a CU level which signals an interleaving selection for the depth map and texture image, and thus necessarily is a supplemental information indicator which indicates whether depth information associated with a video block is present as claimed since the presence of flag for the selection necessarily indicates the presence of depth information when a selection is made.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 32-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 20140085416 A1).
Regarding Claim 32, Chang et al. teaches a device for decoding media content (Abstract), comprising:
a processor (Paragraph 28) configured to:
obtain, for a video block, a supplemental information indicator, wherein the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is signaled at a coding unit (CU) level (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21); and
decode the video block based on the supplemental information indicator associated with the video block (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21).
Regarding Claim 33, Chang et al. teaches the device of claim 32, wherein, based on a condition that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is signaled at the CU level, the processor is configured to obtain the depth information associated with the video block from video data sent to the device, wherein the video block is decoded using the depth information. (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21)
Regarding Claim 34, Chang et al. teaches the device of claim 32, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the supplemental information indicator indicates the depth information associated with the video block is signaled at the CU level; and obtain a depth map from video data sent to the device, wherein the depth map indicates depth information associated with a location in the video block, wherein the video block is decoded based on the depth map (Paragraphs 8-11; Paragraphs 18-21).
Regarding Claim 35, Chang et al. teaches the device of claim 34, wherein the depth information associated with the location in the video block indicates a distance from a reference point (Paragraphs 22-24).
Regarding Claim 36, Chang et al. teaches the device of claim 32, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is signaled at the CU level; and obtain the depth information associated with the video block from video data sent to the device, wherein the depth information comprises quantized information that indicates a discontinuity associated with the video block, wherein the video block is decoded using the quantized information (Paragraphs 8-11; Paragraphs 18-21).
Regarding Claim 37, Chang et al. teaches the device of claim 32, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is signaled at the CU level; and obtain the depth information associated with the video block from video data sent to the device, wherein the depth information comprises coordinate information that defines a line in the video block, and the line in the video block indicates a discontinuity associated with the video block, wherein the video block is decoded using the coordinate information (Paragraphs 8-11; Paragraphs 18-24).
Encoder claims 38-41 are drawn to the encoder associated with the decoder of claims 32-37 and have substantially similar claim limitations merely performed in the inverse. Encoder claims are rejected for the same reason and using the same reference as discussed above. Chang et al. further teaches a device for encoding media content, comprising: a processor to perform the encoding (Paragraph 28).
Method claims 42-51 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claims 32-41 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483