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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/13/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Number 12126821 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly added claim 2-15 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive.
Regarding claims 11-15, these claims are directed to a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream (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 computer readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 11- 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor 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 computer readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Tourapis which recites a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (See Tourapis, ¶¶[0138] and [0147]).
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tourapis et al. (US20150071344A1 ), hereinafter referred to as Tourapis.
Regarding claims 11-15, these claims are directed to a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream (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 computer readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 11- 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor 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 computer readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Tourapis which recites a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (See Tourapis, ¶¶[0138] and [0147]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to video coding.
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 “determining a flag from the data unit of the parameter set, the flag having either a first value indicating an absence of an offset to the QP for the luma component in the bitstream or a second value indicating a presence of the offset to the QP for the luma component in the bitstream; determining, in a case that the flag is equal to [[a]]the first value, a QP for a chroma component of the region as a first function of the QP for the luma component and a default chroma delta QP indicated by the flag; determining, in a case that the flag is equal to [[a]]the second value different from the first value, the QP for the chroma component of the region by:(a) obtaining a delta chroma QP; and(b) determining the QP for the chroma component as a second function of the QP for the luma component and the delta chroma QP; and decoding the chroma component using the QP for the chroma component using the parameter set that is activated for decoding the region..”
Tourapis, the closest prior art of record, discloses many of the limitations of the claims. However, Tourapis, 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 6 recites features similar to those discussed above and therefore allowable for analogous reasons.
The dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are allowed for the same reasons as those supporting the allowability of the corresponding independent claims.
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.”
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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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