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 with respect to claim(s) 21, 28, and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 61/932,852, 14/319,285, 15/091,733, 15/811,033, 16/372,678, 17/834,190, 18/339,001, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, provisional application 61/932,852 fails to provide support for a first core performing a first encoding task in a first encoding stage with respect to the plurality of images and a second core configured to perform a second encoding task in a second encoding stage with respect to the first plurality of images encoded in the first encoding stage. Specifically, the provisional application does not disclose any stages.
Regarding claims 22-39, they depend from claim 21 and therefore are not supported by the provisional application for the same reasons as stated above (see claims 21 and 40.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 38, 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,234 B2.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teach all the limitations of instant claims 21 and 40.
Regarding claim 38, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 38.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,234 B2.
Regarding claim 28, claims 1 and 6 of ‘234 teach all the limitations of instant claim 28.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,234 B2 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0132735 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 39, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), however, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234, fail to explicitly disclose the electronic device is a smart phone. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the electronic device (200; fig. 7) is a smartphone (figs. 7-8; [0074]).
Claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teaches an electronic device having an array imager. Lee teaches an electronic device having an array imager wherein the electronic device is a smartphone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed electronic device with a smartphone to achieve the predictable result of providing a camera on a device that is often on a user’s person.
Claims 21, 38, 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,448 B2.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teach all the limitations of instant claims 21 and 40.
Regarding claim 38, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 38.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,448 B2.
Regarding claim 28, claims 1 and 6 of ‘448 teach all the limitations of instant claim 28.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,448 B2 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0132735 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 39, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), however, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448, fail to explicitly disclose the electronic device is a smart phone. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the electronic device (200; fig. 7) is a smartphone (figs. 7-8; [0074]).
Claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teaches an electronic device having an array imager. Lee teaches an electronic device having an array imager wherein the electronic device is a smartphone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed electronic device with a smartphone to achieve the predictable result of providing a camera on a device that is often on a user’s person.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 27, 31-33, 36-37 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 24, 31, 33, the prior art of record fails to disclose the first encoding task includes spatial prediction or spectral prediction and the second encoding task includes temporal prediction or three-dimensional encoding.
Regarding claims 27, 32, 36-37, they depend from one of claims 24, 31, or 33 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons as stated above (see claims 24, 31, 33).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights