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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 3 remains unpatentable over the prior art due to the reliance on non-functional descriptive material to describe the intended invention. Applicant argues the “wherein” clauses of claim 3 define features relating to image information included in the bitstream. However, this does not establish a functional relationship between the bitstream and the method. No amount of detail regarding the composition of the bitstream establishes the necessary functional relationship required. Amendments which clearly state the transmission method receives the bitstream, modifies the bitstream, then transmits the modified bitstream would establish a functional relationship rather than being merely descriptive.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer received April 8, 2026.
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)(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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al. (2017/0201747, of record) [Son].
Regarding claim 3, the claim is directed towards a transmission method for a bitstream comprising two steps, reception and transmission. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim includes generation of the bitstream that is not performed by the claimed method. As such, the contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP $2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed method for transmitting the bitstream. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the generation of bitstream in terms of how the video gets encoded within the bitstream, there is provided no functional relationship between the bitstream's contents once generated and the process for transmitting the bitstream. As result, the contents of the bitstream are non- functional descriptive language and will be given not patentable weight.
Son discloses a transmission method of data for an image comprising obtaining a bitstream for the image and transmitting the data comprising the bitstream (see fig. 1 for transmission and fig. 2 for reception).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 are allowed.
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 DOMINIC D SALTARELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7302. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/DOMINIC D SALTARELLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights