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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. This claim discloses a “computer readable medium” (in line 1) that could be broadly interpreted to include medium such as carrier waves and media distributed over a network (Please see the MPEP 2106 Section IV. Determine Whether the Claimed Invention Complies with 35 U.S.C. 101). This rejection may be overcome by modifying the claim and the specification to recite a non-transitory computer readable medium or tangible computer readable device. Please note that “tangible” by itself will not make the claim statutory. Tangible means perceivable, and a signal can be perceived. In addition, “Non-transitory medium” is not an acceptable substitute terminology because the claim language does not reflect the interrelationship between the program and a computer. The claims should be amended to recite “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Claim 13 recites “A computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method.
This claim is directed to mere data storage that results from an upstream process (encoding method) that has no definitive relationship with and is wholly separate from the storage medium ( 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 method in claim 13. 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 a encoding method).
To be crystal 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 program 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 computer program 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 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 decoding 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
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A2 as being anticipated by US 20230336773 A!-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”)..
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an image decoding method comprising: padding a motion compensation padding area within a first padding distance from a boundary of a current picture according to a motion vector of a boundary block adjacent to the boundary of the current picture ([0208], Fig. 25, In MC boundary padding, a MV of a 4×4 boundary block (shown as BBlk) in a current picture is utilized to derive a L×4 or 4×L padding block (shown as MCP Blk) in the MC padding aera of the current picture); padding a repetitive padding area within a second padding area from a boundary of the motion compensation padding area according to a value of a pixel adjacent to the boundary of the motion compensation padding area ([0207], Fig. 24B, the the extended area also includes the repetitive padding area that is padded by repetitive padding); and storing an extended picture composed of the current picture, the motion compensation padding area and the repetitive padding area in a memory ([0042], [0049], [0052]; memory for storing)
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the padding the motion compensation padding area comprises: extracting a motion vector from the boundary block ([0208-0214]; Fig. 25 shows a MV); determining a reference block from a motion compensation padding reference picture referenced for motion compensation padding based on the motion vector ([0208-0214], Fig 25 shows a reference block that’s based on the MV); determining an adjacent motion compensation padding reference block in a padding direction from the reference block ([0216-0218],Fig 26 shows an adjacent motion compensation padding reference block); and padding the motion compensation padding area based on the motion compensation padding reference block ([0213], padding MC).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein in the determining the motion compensation padding reference block, the motion compensation padding reference block is determined to include adjacent pixels within the first padding distance in the padding direction from a boundary of the reference block ([0205], pixels).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 3, wherein in the determining the motion compensation padding reference block, when a motion compensation padding referenceable distance between the boundary of the reference block and the boundary of the motion compensation padding reference picture is smaller than the first padding distance, the motion compensation padding reference block is determined to include adjacent pixels within the motion compensation padding referenceable distance in the padding direction from the boundary of the reference block ([0221])).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 4, wherein in the padding the motion compensation padding area based on the motion compensation padding reference block, when the motion compensation padding referenceable distance between the boundary of the reference block and the boundary of the motion compensation padding reference picture is smaller than the first padding distance, ([0221]) a motion compensation paddable area within the motion compensation padding referenceable distance from the boundary of the current picture of the motion compensation padding area is padded by the motion compensation padding reference block, and an area that is not the motion compensation paddable area of the motion compensation padding area is padded based on a pixel value of the motion compensation paddable area (Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein when the motion vector cannot be extracted from the boundary block ([0253]), the motion compensation padding area is padded according to a value of a pixel adjacent to the boundary of the current picture ([0204).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein the extracting the motion vector from the boundary block comprises: determining a temporal neighboring block corresponding to a position of the boundary block from a temporal corresponding reference picture of the current picture when the motion vector cannot be extracted from the boundary block ([0235]); and extracting the motion vector from the temporal neighboring block ([0208-0214]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the first padding distance is determined based on at least one of a maximum size of a coding unit, a size of the current picture or a size of the boundary block (Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the first padding distance is determined to be one of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 or 256 (Fig 24, 16).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the second padding distance is determined based on at least one of a maximum size of a coding unit, a size of the current picture or a size of the boundary block (Fig 24).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein a size of the extended picture is determined based on the size of the current picture regardless of a value of the first padding distance ([0204]).
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 12 (encoding performs the opposite of decoding)
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 13. In addition, Claim 11 have been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because it recites “A computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream”. 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. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 13 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored wherein the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. As such, Zhao clearly anticipates a computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream encoded by the method as taught in [0274]).
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487