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 .
Claim Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a data stream which is to be used in reconstructing chroma samples according to the results of analysis steps outlined in the claim. These steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the 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. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight.
Additionally, the computer readable medium does not include an instruction to execute the decoding process by a computer. The limitations detailing how the stored data stream is to be analyzed is not positively recited and is considered intended use (MPEP 2111.02). Therefore, the limitation the limitations directed to intended use are not given patentable weight.
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(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bossen (US 20220360774 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Bossen discloses interface 108 may include a computer system interface that may enable a compliant video bitstream to be stored on a storage device (Bossen: paragraph [0322]).
Regarding claim 18, Bossen discloses interface 108 may include a computer system interface that may enable a compliant video bitstream to be stored on a storage device (Bossen: paragraph [0322]).
Regarding claim 19, Bossen discloses interface 108 may include a computer system interface that may enable a compliant video bitstream to be stored on a storage device (Bossen: paragraph [0322]).
Regarding claim 20, Bossen discloses interface 108 may include a computer system interface that may enable a compliant video bitstream to be stored on a storage device (Bossen: paragraph [0322]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach the decoding method of independent claim 1, the encoding method of independent claim 4, the decoding apparatus of independent claim 8, and the encoding apparatus of independent claim 11.
The prior art is particularly deficient regarding the specifically outlined analysis of image characteristics and coding conditions to determine whether or not to apply PDPC to prediction samples.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-16 are dependent upon claims 1, 4, 8, and 11, and therefore are also 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.”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights