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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a continuation application filed in which claims 1-24 of the instant application are pending and ready for examination
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “decoder configured to determine...”, “decoder configured to sequentially determine...”, “decoder configured to set...”, “decoder configured to generate...”, and “decoder configured to decode...” in independent claim 9. Similar 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations apply for all of the claim limitations in dependent claims 10-16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “decoder configured to determine...”, “decoder configured to sequentially determine...”, “decoder configured to set...”, “decoder configured to generate...”, and “decoder configured to decode...” in independent claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear disclosure of structure apparent in the decoder in the aforementioned independent claims. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 10-16 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above for the independent claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art made of record in regards to applicant’s claimed invention is as follows:
Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2020/0007870) discloses techniques using Position Dependent Intra Prediction Combination (PDPC) and multiple reference lines. A video coder (e.g., an encoder and/or decoder) can predict an initial prediction sample value for a sample of a current block using an intra-prediction mode. The initial prediction sample value can be predicted from a first neighboring block and/or a second neighboring block of the current block. One or more reference sample values can be determined from at least one line of multiple lines of reference samples from the first neighboring block and/or the second neighboring block. At least one of the lines from the multiple lines used for determining the reference sample value(s) is not adjacent to the current block. A final prediction sample value can be determined for the sample of the current block, such as by modifying the initial prediction sample value using the one or more reference sample values (abstract).
Kim et al. (US 2020/0137401) discloses a method and a device for decoding an image by means of a partition unit comprising an additional region. The method of decoding an image by means of a partition unit comprising an additional region comprises the steps of: partitioning, by reference to a syntax element acquired from a received bit stream, an encoded image, which is included in the bitstream, in at least one partition unit; define an additional region for at least one partition unit; and decoding the encoded image based on the partition unit for which the additional region is defined (abstract).
Kim-II et al. (US 2014/0362906) discloses a method for decoding an image that comprises the steps of: restoring a residual block by performing inverse quantization and inverse transformation for the entropy-decoded residual block; generating a prediction block by performing intra prediction for a current block; and restoring an image by adding the restored residual block to the prediction block, wherein the step of generating the prediction block further comprises a step for generating a final prediction value of a pixel to be predicted, on the basis of a first prediction value of the pixel to be predicted, which is included in the current block, and of a final correction value that is calculated by performing an arithmetic right shift by a binary digit for a two's complement integer representation with respect to an initial correction value of the pixel to be predicted (abstract).
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0146211) discloses a device for decoding video data that determines that a current block of video data is coded using a linear model prediction mode; for the luma component of the current block, determines reconstructed luma samples; based on luma samples in a luma component of one or more already decoded neighboring blocks and chroma samples in a chroma component of the one or more already decoded neighboring blocks, determines values for linear parameters, wherein the luma samples in the luma component of the one or more already decoded neighboring blocks comprise luma samples from a starting line in the luma component of the one or more already decoded neighboring blocks, wherein the starting line in the luma component of the one or more already decoded neighboring blocks is at least one line removed from a border line of the luma component of the current block (abstract).
Claims 1-8 and 17-24 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1 and 17, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
Additionally, the closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claim 9, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claim and dependent claims.
Claims 9-16 would be allowable if the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights