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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
For reference, claim 13 recites “A computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding/decoding method [steps of encoding method].
This claim is directed to mere data storage that results from an upstream/downstream process (encoding/decoding method) that has no definitive relationship with and is wholly separate from the storage medium (non-transitory computer-readable medium) being claimed.
Significantly, the claimed storage medium is NOT implementing the encoding method in claim 13; no instructions/steps are being executed by a processor to perform the encoding/decoding method. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data stream output from the encoding method. In other words, claim 13 is directed to a mere computer-readable medium storing data content (a data stream generated by an encoding method).
To be clear, Applicant has not used the standard CRM (computer readable media) claim formats of a) “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when implemented by a processor, perform an encoding method [steps of encoding method]” or a b) non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a specified method that was held to recite patent-eligible product under 35 USC 101 by In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and endorsed by the USPTO in 77 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Examples: Abstract Ideas at 1-3, 8-10.
Such standard CRM claim formats that recite execution/implementation of a method are also not subject to a nonfunctional descriptive material claim interpretation because such a claimed media does not merely store output data but instead stores functional, method steps that have a functional relationship with the media.
Applicant has deviated substantially from such standard-format CRM claims by positively reciting only the storing of a data stream while the generation thereof by an “encoding method” is ancillary, occurs before the claimed storing by the medium, and does not require anything functional to occur in or to the medium besides mere storing.
Under MPEP 2111.05(III), claim 13’s storage medium storing a data stream is merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between a) the stored data (data stream) and medium or b) the stored data (data stream) and the encoding method. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As such, claim 13 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application such as, for example, a compact disc storing Abbey Road by the Beatles. For the sake of compact prosecution, however, claim 13 has been rejected based on prior art that actually discloses the method of generating the stored data (data stream).
Further in regards to In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) note that the presently claimed invention differs significantly from Lowry’s claims. Lowry’s claim 1 recites “A memory for storing data for access by an application program being executed on a data processing system, comprising [data structures including ADO (attribute data objects)].
In Lowry, the Federal Circuit stated:
Nor are the data structures analogous to printed matter. Lowry's ADOs do not represent merely underlying data in a database. ADOs contain both information used by application programs and information regarding their physical interrelationships within a memory. Lowry's claims dictate how application programs manage information. Thus, Lowry's claims define functional characteristics of the memory.
Lowry’s ADOs (Attribute Data Objects) contain information regarding their physical interrelationships with the carrier (a memory) and Lowry’s claims dictate how the application programs manage information. According to Lowry “ADOs have both hierarchical and non-hierarchical interrelationships” with rules that govern these relationships which are recited in the claims and which form functional relationships with the medium.
But unlike Lowry, the claimed invention has no functional relationship between the product (computer readable medium) and the printed matter (the stored data stream) and no functional relationship could exist possibly between the product and a processor because no processor is recited in the claim. Instead, a data stream is merely stored; the data stream itself is not defined within the claim and the computer readable medium solely acts as a carrier or substrate for storing the data stream.
As further evidence that the medium is a mere carrier of information note that that the data stream being stored is an end product or output of the encoding/decoding method such that the only functional role played by the medium solely consists of storing information.
In further contrast to Lowry, instant claim 13 merely stores a raw data stream having no claimed organization or relationship to the carrier (readable medium). In other words, claim 13 merely recites storage of the information content (bitstream).
In Lowry, the Federal Circuit goes on to point out that:
Indeed, Lowry does not seek to patent the Attributive data model in the abstract. Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database. Rather, Lowry's data structures impose a physical organization on the data.
In sharp contrast to Lowry, Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a data stream in the abstract. In other words, the claims seek to patent the content of the information (data stream with encoded video content). Moreover, this stored data stream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the data stream and the storage medium.
Furthermore, instant claim 13 is analogous to the memory stick storing tables of batting averages in which the computer readable medium is merely a support for the information (data stream) consistent with the example in MPEP 2111.05(III) which states.
However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer” MPEP 2111.05(III) Machine-readable media
In conclusion, claim 13 is directed to mere data content (data stream generated by the recited encoding method) stored as a data stream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be 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)(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 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JHU et al (US 2025/0016347, hereafter Jhu).
As per claim 1, Jhu discloses an image decoding method, the method comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block based on a gradient between at least two samples belonging to a neighboring region adjacent to the current block (¶ 133; Next, we perform a gradient analysis on the pixels of the template);
configuring a reference sample of the current block (¶ 133; We choose, as shown in FIG. 7, a template surrounding the current block by T pixels to the left, and T pixels above.); and
based on the intra prediction mode and the reference sample, generating a prediction block of the current block (¶ 133; To derive the intra prediction mode for a block, we must first select a set of neighboring pixels on which we will perform a gradient analysis).
As per claim 2, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the prediction block of the current block includes:
when a plurality of intra prediction modes are derived based on the gradient between the at least two samples, generating a plurality of temporary prediction blocks based on each of the plurality of derived intra prediction modes (¶ 136); and
by weighted summing the plurality of temporary prediction blocks and a planar temporary prediction block generated by a planar mode, generating the prediction block of the current block (¶ 137; The two IPMs corresponding to two tallest HoG bars are combined with the Planar mode).
As per claim 3, Jhu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein:
the method further includes modifying the prediction block or a temporary prediction block of the current block by applying a position dependent intra prediction to the current block (¶ 117; the results of intra prediction of DC, planar and several angular modes are further modified by a position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) method ).
As per claim 4, Jhu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein:
the position dependent intra prediction is applied to each of the plurality of temporary prediction blocks according to whether each of the plurality of temporary prediction blocks is predicted by one of predefined intra prediction modes (Figure 11D).
As per claim 5, Jhu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein:
the position dependent intra prediction is individually applied to the plurality of temporary prediction blocks and the planar temporary prediction block (Figure 12A).
As per claim 6, the method of claim 3, wherein:
the position dependent intra prediction is applied only to the planar temporary prediction block among the plurality of temporary prediction blocks and the planar temporary prediction block (¶ 117; PDPC is applied to the following intra modes without signaling: planar; Jhu’s disclosure suggests that if the other temporary blocks do not meet the criteria for intra angles than PDPC will only be applied to the planar mode).
As per claim 7, Jhu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein:
whether the position dependent intra prediction is applied is determined based on at least one of a prediction direction of the plurality of intra prediction modes, a size of a gradient for the plurality of intra prediction modes or a weight applied to the weighted sum (¶ 172; In another example, the IPMs corresponding to the tallest histogram bar is selected as the specific mode then PDPC with the specific mode is applied).
As per claim 8, Jhu discloses the method of claim 7, wherein:
the position dependent intra prediction is applied only to a temporary prediction block generated by a main intra prediction mode having a largest size of a gradient among the plurality of intra prediction modes (¶ 172; In another example, the IPMs corresponding to the tallest histogram bar is selected as the specific mode then PDPC with the specific mode is applied).
As per claim 9, the method of claim 3, wherein:
the position dependent intra prediction is applied to the prediction block of the current block that is a weighted sum of the plurality of temporary prediction blocks and the planar temporary prediction block (Figure 12B).
As per claim 10, Jhu discloses the method of claim 9, wherein:
whether to apply the position dependent intra prediction is determined according to whether a main intra prediction mode having a largest size of a gradient among the plurality of intra prediction modes is one of predefined intra prediction modes (¶ 172; The examiner argues that all intra prediction modes are predefined in HEVC and VVC and thus as long as the method finds one with the largest size of a gradient then the claim limitation is met. The applicant use of a predefined intra prediction mode lacks clarity).
As per claim 11, Jhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
when the gradient-based intra prediction mode derivation method is applied to the current block, a position dependent intra prediction is not applied to the current block (¶ 173; it is proposed to disable the PDPC operations in DIMD mode).
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487