CTNF 18/930,747 CTNF 82637 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Nonfunctional Descriptive Material For reference, claim(s) 15 recites “A computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding/decoding method [steps of encoding method]. This claim is directed to mere data storage that results from an upstream/downstream process (encoding/decoding method) that has no definitive relationship with and is wholly separate from the storage medium (non-transitory computer-readable medium) being claimed. Significantly, the claimed storage medium is NOT implementing the encoding method in claim 15; no instructions/steps are being executed by a processor to perform the encoding/decoding method. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data stream output from the encoding method. In other words, claim 15 is directed to a mere computer-readable medium storing data content (a data stream generated by an encoding method). To be 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 stream 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 15’s storage medium storing a data stream 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 15 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 15 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/decoding method such that the only functional role played by the medium solely consists of storing information . In further contrast to Lowry , instant claim 15 merely stores a raw data stream having no claimed organization or relationship to the carrier (readable medium). In other words, claim 15 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 15 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 15 is directed to mere data content (data stream generated by the recited encoding 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al (US 2018/0184082, hereafter Yoo) . As per claim 1 , Yoo discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block based on a most probable mode (MPM) list (¶ 276); deriving a reference sample for the current block based on the intra prediction mode (¶ 276); and generating a prediction block of the current block by performing intra prediction for the current block using the intra prediction mode and the reference sample, wherein the MPM list is configured based on a first candidate mode and a second candidate mode (¶ 278 and 280), wherein the first candidate mode is obtained based on a first prediction mode of a first neighboring block adjacent to the current block and the second candidate mode is obtained based on a second prediction mode of a second neighboring block adjacent to the current block (¶ 278, 280, and 291), wherein the MPM list includes a third candidate mode obtained by adding or subtracting m to a maximum value of the first candidate mode and the second candidate mode, and wherein m is 1 or 2 (¶ 371, 372). As per claim 2 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein, in response to the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is not available for the current block, the second candidate mode is a planar mode (¶ 318). As per claim 5 , Yoo discloses the image decoding of claim 1, wherein the MPM list includes a fourth candidate mode obtained by adding or subtracting n to a minimum value of the first candidate mode and the second candidate mode, and wherein n is 1 or 2 (¶ 371 and 372). As per claim 6 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 5, wherein m and n are different from each other (¶ 371 and 372). As per claim 8 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the first candidate mode and the second candidate mode are directional intra prediction modes (¶ 278 and 280). Regarding claim 14 , arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 14. Regarding claim 15 , arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Son et al (US 2018/0241995, hereafter Son) . As per claim 3 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 2. However, Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein, in response to the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is an inter prediction mode, the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is not available for the current block. In the same field of endeavor, Son teaches wherein, in response to the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is an inter prediction mode, the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is not available for the current block (¶ 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yoo in view of Son. The advantage is improving video coding. As per claim 4 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 2. However, Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein, in response to a coding tree unit of the second neighboring block is located outside a boundary of a coding tree unit of the current block, the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is not available for the current block. In the same field of endeavor, Son discloses wherein, in response to a coding tree unit of the second neighboring block is located outside a boundary of a coding tree unit of the current block, the second prediction mode of the second neighboring block is not available for the current block (¶ 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yoo in view of Son. The advantage is improving video coding . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Lee et al (US 12,003,713, hereafter Lee) . As per claim 9 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1. However, Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein the image decoding method further comprises filtering the prediction block of the current block using scale values of the current block. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the image decoding method further comprises filtering the prediction block of the current block using scale values of the current block (column 31 lines 36 - 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yoo in view of Lee. The advantage is improving video coding. As per claim 12 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 9. However, Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein whether the prediction block is filtered is determined based on the intra prediction mode of the current block, a reference sample line including the reference sample and a size of the current block. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein whether the prediction block is filtered is determined based on the intra prediction mode of the current block, a reference sample line including the reference sample and a size of the current block (column 31 lines 1 – 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yoo in view of Lee. The advantage is improving video coding. As per claim 13 , Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 12. However, Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein the prediction block is filtered only when an index of the reference sample line is 0. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the prediction block is filtered only when an index of the reference sample line is 0 (column 31 lines 1 - 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yoo in view of Lee. The advantage is improving video coding . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 7, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, 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. /CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 2 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 3 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 4 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 5 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 6 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 7 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 8 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 9 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 10 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 11 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 12 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/930,747 Page 13 Art Unit: 2487
Prosecution Insights