Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 12/23/2025. Applicant’s argument, filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn based on the terminal disclaimer/claim amendments submitted on 12/23/2025.
The application filed on 08/06/2024, CON of 18/220,014, which is CON of 17/571,040 01/07/2022 PAT 11729392, which is a CON of 17/088,409 11/03/2020 PAT 11245907, which is a CON of 16/598,984 10/10/2019 PAT 10863178, which is a CON of 16/109,214 08/22/2018 PAT 10491901, which is a CON of 15/651,178 07/17/2017 PAT 10085026, which is a CON of 14/411,313 12/24/2014 PAT 9736482, which is a 371 of PCT/KR2013/005636 06/26/2013, which has PRO 61/672,750 07/17/2012 and PRO 61/664,701 06/26/2012.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim limitation “Wherein each largest square block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks, …. decoded in raster order” is not properly explained in the specification making it failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The claims are indefinite.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 1 refers to "A method for decoding image”, and Claim 2 refers to "A method for encoding image” and Claim 3 refers to "A transmission method of data for an image”. Claims 2-3 is similarly rejected in light of rejection of claim 1. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segall (US 20130016786 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20130101035 A1), hereinafter Wang, further in view of Panusopone et al. (US 20120082238 A1), hereinafter Panusopone, further in view of Wahadaniah et al. (US 20120163457 A1), hereinafter Wahadaniah.
Regarding claim 17, Segall discloses a method for decoding image, by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: (Abstract): receiving image information including tile information, while the tile information includes information on a plurality of rectangular tiles in a current picture, each rectangular tile being a rectangular region independently decoded by the decoding apparatus; (Fig. 8, First tile of the image), deriving the plurality of rectangular tiles in the current picture based on the tile information the plurality of rectangular tiles ([0052], tiles and slices in a frame, [0069], line 13-15, tile information in the slice header), wherein in the tile are ordered consecutively in raster scan order, ([0093], line 6-22, LCUs ordered in raster scan order, LCUs 1-9 consecutively, Tiles in raster scan order, Tiles A-I, consecutively).
Segall discloses all the elements of claim 17 but Segall does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein tiles in the current picture are ordered consecutively in raster scan order in the current picture.
However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein tiles in the current picture are ordered consecutively in raster scan order in the current picture ([0114], line 4-5, plurality of tiles may be included in one slice, [0117], line 1-5, tiles assigned to one tile group to common one slice, [0123], integer tile group ID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Segall to incorporate the teachings of Wang for improved parallel processing for both encoding and decoding (Wang, Abstract).
Segall in view of Wang discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section including
However, Panusopone from the same or similar endeavor teaches including ([0006], [0034], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Segall in view of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Panusopone to improve coding efficiency (Panusopone, [0013]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Segall in view of Wang further in view of Panusopone discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein each largest square block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks, each subblock being a square block or a non-square block, the plurality of subblock in one largest square block being decoded in raster order.
However, Wahadaniah from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein each largest square block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks, each subblock being a square block or a non-square block, the plurality of subblock in one largest square block being decoded in raster order ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Segall in view of Wang further in view of Panusopone to incorporate the teachings of Wahadaniah to improve coding efficiency (Wahadaniah, [0010]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2-3, See Examiner’s Note.
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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on (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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487