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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
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.
(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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leleannec et al. (US 20220038719 A1), hereinafter referred to as Leleannec.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is directed to apparatus for transmitting data for an image, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to cause the apparatus to obtain a bitstream for the image wherein the bitstream is generated by an encoding method. The limitations related to the operations that generated the bitstream are irrelevant as in terms of determining patentability of the method of transmitting a bitstream Therefore, the operations referenced in the claim(s) that generates the bitstream do not form part of transmitting method, and thus are not limiting to the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim scope is just a method of transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Leleannec which recites a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Leleannec, ¶¶ [0153] and [0154])
Regarding claims 4, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a data stream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the data stream and the process is the method steps to generate the data stream. 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 non-transitory computer readable medium storing the data stream (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 “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable medium storing the claimed data stream in claim 15 merely serves as a support for the storage of the data stream and provides no functional relationship between the stored data stream and storage medium. Therefor the data stream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer readable medium storing data and is anticipated by Leleannec which recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a data stream (See Leleannec, ¶ [0140]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to video or image coding and relates to a scaling list data signaling-based coding technology, for example.
Applicant has uniquely claimed distinct features in the independent claim 1, which in combination with the other features are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record. The distinct features include “wherein the image information includes an adaptation parameter set (APS), header information, general constraints information and a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein the header information includes APS ID information related to scaling list data for specifying the APS including scaling list data, wherein the APS includes APS ID information and APS type information, the APS type information indicating whether scaling list data for quantized transform coefficients is included in the APS wherein the SPS includes first enabled flag information related to whether scaling list data is used wherein the general constraints information includes constraint flag information related toinformation is equal to 1,wherein based on a value of the constraint flag information being equal to 1, the value of the first enabled flag information is determined to be equal to 0, and wherein when a value of the constraint flag information equal to 0, the value of the first enabled flag information.”
Choi et al. (US 20230102088 A1), the closest prior art of record, discloses many of the limitations of the claims. However, Choi, either, individually or in combination with other prior art of record (See PTO-892), fails to anticipate or render obvious the above-cited limitations.
The independent claim 2 recites features similar to those discussed above and therefore allowable for analogous reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights