DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, respectively, of US Pat. No. 11,863,732 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Pat. No. 11,706,531 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, respectively, of US Pat. No. 12,108,017 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Patent No. 11,706,531 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (He) (US 2019/0215532) in view of Drugeon et al. (Drugeon) (US 2012/0320970), and further in view of Hannuksela et al. (Hannuksela) (US 2014/0168362).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method for decoding a 360-degree image, the method comprising:
receiving encoded data for the 360-degree image, the encoded data including data of an extended 2-dimensional image (FIG. 2c), the extended 2-dimensional image including a 2-dimensional image (FIG. 2b and 2c, 2D image having faces 0-5) and a predetermined extension region (FIG. 2c, [0086], the image in FIG. 2c has padded regions 201 and 203), and the 2-dimensional image being projected from an image with a 3-dimensional projection structure ([0086], a 360 image is projected to a cubemap) and including at least one face (FIG. 2b, faces 0-5); and
reconstructing the extended 2-dimensional image by decoding the encoded data ([0105], decoding is performed for reconstructing and displaying the image),
wherein the encoded data includes size information for the extension region ([0145], a padded region size is signaled, [0158], a padded region size dW and dH is signaled),
for determining values of the extension region for each face and for each of the left side, the right side, the upper side and the bottom side of the face ([0118], [0140], padding is applied to faces of the image; [0142], padding is performed at the encoder or decoder; [0112], [0116], [0121], [0132], [0133], [0155], a padding method for padding faces of the image is determined from vertical, horizontal, repetitive padding, geometry padding, interpolation, or hybrid padding methods for generating padded pixel values).
He is silent about the size information includes first width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a left side of the face, second width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a right side of the face, third height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a top side of the face and fourth height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a bottom side of the face, and wherein the encoded data includes information on a padding method.
Drugeon from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the size information ([0153], the size of the padded region is signaled as a number of padding pixels added to the image) includes first width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a left side of the face ([0157], pad_left), second width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a right side of the face ([0153], pad_right), third height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a top side of the face ([0157], pad_top) and fourth height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a bottom side of the face (pad_bottom) ([0157], any number of the padding syntax may be used at the same time); and different padding methods ([0130], the padded pixels values may a predefined value or may be determined based on the value of neighboring pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Drugeon into the teachings of He for more efficient image encoding/decoding by enabling padding in multiple discreet directions.
He in view of Drugeon is silent about wherein the encoded data includes information on a padding method.
Hannuksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the encoded data includes information on a padding method ([0746], a padding method is signaled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of He in view of Drugeon for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 2, He discloses a method for encoding a 360-degree image, the method comprising:
obtaining an extended 2-dimensional image (FIG. 2c) including a 2-dimensional image (FIG. 2b and 2c, 2D image having faces 0-5) and a predetermined extension region (FIG. 2c, [0086], the image in FIG. 2c has padded regions 201 and 203), the 2-dimensional image being projected from an image with a 3-dimensional projection structure ([0086], a 360 image is projected to a cubemap) and including at least one face (FIG. 2b, faces 0-5); and
encoding data of the extended 2-dimensional image to generate encoded data for the 360-degree image (FIG. 2c is encoded, [0145], a padded region size is signaled, [0158], a padded region size dW and dH is signaled),
wherein the encoded data includes size information for the extension region ([0145], a padded region size is signaled, [0158], a padded region size dW and dH is signaled
a padding method for determining values of the extension region for each face and for each of the left side, the right side, the upper side and the bottom side of the face ([0118], [0140], padding is applied to faces of the image; [0142], padding is performed at the encoder or decoder; [0112], [0116], [0121], [0132], [0133], [0155], a padding method for padding faces of the image is determined from vertical, horizontal, repetitive padding, geometry padding, interpolation, or hybrid padding methods for generating padded pixel values).
He is silent about the size information includes first width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a left side of the face, second width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a right side of the face, third height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a top side of the face and fourth height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a bottom side of the face, and wherein the encoded data includes information on a padding method.
Drugeon from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the size information ([0153], the size of the padded region is signaled as a number of padding pixels added to the image) includes first width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a left side of the face ([0157], pad_left), second width information for specifying a width of the extension region on a right side of the face ([0153], pad_right), third height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a top side of the face ([0157], pad_top) and fourth height information for specifying a height of the extension region on a bottom side of the face (pad_bottom) ([0157], any number of the padding syntax may be used at the same time); and applying different padding methods ([0130], the padded pixels values may a predefined value or may be determined based on the value of neighboring pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Drugeon into the teachings of He for more efficient image encoding/decoding by enabling padding in multiple discreet directions.
He in view of Drugeon is silent about wherein the encoded data includes information on a padding method.
Hannuksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the encoded data includes information on a padding method ([0746], a padding method is signaled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of He in view of Drugeon for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 3 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 (see claim 2 above).
He further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing encoded data for a 360-degree image ([0107], [0108], reference pictures are stored in a storage; [0211], computer readable media is used for storing data and executing a program).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 4 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 (see claim 2 above).
He further discloses a method for transmitting encoded data for a 360-degree image (FIG. 33B, [0184], image data is transmitted).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
