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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response the Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 1-18 were pending. Claims 1, 8-9 and 15 have been amended. No claims have been added nor cancelled. Claims 1-18 remains pending.
The 35 USC § 101 rejection to claim 15 has been moot in view of Applicant’s Amendment.
Applicant failed to respond the 35 USC § 102 claim rejection to claim 15 for “for storing bitstream”, therefore, 35 USC § 102 rejection of claim 15 is sustained. Examiner attempt to resolve this issue by telephoning the applicant on 01/07/2026 and 02/03/2026, but was unable to reach the applicant or the applicant’s representative.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) Wang et al. (published on US 20230023220 A1, hereinafter “Wang”) discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
determining a decoding order of a plurality of slices within a current picture (0180-0181, 0202); and
decoding the plurality of slices based on the determined decoding order (0097-0099; Figure 1; “[0097] In VVC, A picture is divided into one or more tile rows and one or more tile columns. A tile is a sequence of CTUs that covers a rectangular region of a picture. The CTUs in a tile are scanned in raster scan order within that tile.”),
wherein based on the decoding order of the plurality of slices being determined to be a different order from a raster scan order (0099; “[0099] Two modes of slices are supported, namely the raster-scan slice mode and the rectangular slice mode. In the raster-scan slice mode, a slice contains a sequence of complete tiles in a tile raster scan of a picture. In the rectangular slice mode, a slice contains either a number of complete tiles that collectively form a rectangular region of the picture or a number of consecutive complete CTU rows of one tile that collectively form a rectangular region of the picture. Tiles within a rectangular slice are scanned in tile raster scan order within the rectangular region corresponding to that slice.”).
Wang failed to disclose wherein based on the decoding order of the plurality of slices being determined to be a different order from a raster scan order, a left neighboring slice located on a left side of a current slice within the current picture and a top neighboring slice located above the current slice are restricted to precede the current slice in decoding order,
wherein the current picture includes zero or more slices between the current slice and the left neighboring slice, and the current picture includes zero or more slices between the current slice and the top neighboring slice.
Further search and consideration failed to result on prior art that could cure the deficiency of Wang prior art, therefore, the independent claim 1 along with its dependent claims 2-7 are allowed.
Regarding claim 8. (Currently Amended) The encoding method claim 8 is drawn to the reverse method of the corresponding decoding method claimed in claim 1. Therefore encoding method claim 8 corresponds to decoding claim 1 along with its dependent claims 9-14 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20230023220 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 15. (Currently Amended) Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe how the bitstream is generated. These steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the video is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the non-transitory computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. As result, the claim limitations that describe the generation of the bitstream are non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP §211.05) and are afforded no patentable weight.
Claim 15 directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See 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 CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM.
Therefore, the structure bitstream, 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 storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (0107 and 0292; Claim 19).
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 ASMAMAW TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482