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 an application filed on 11/15/2024 is a CON of 18/498,597 10/31/2023 PAT 12231610, which is a CON of 18/314,965 05/10/2023 PAT 11902668, which is a CON of 17/579,225 01/19/2022 PAT 11696035, which is a CON of 17/027,154 09/21/2020 PAT 11483476, which is a CON of 16/372,287 04/01/2019 ABN, CON of PCT/KR2017/011138 10/10/2017, in which claims 1-8 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0127887 10/04/2016, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0129386 10/06/2016, KOREA, and REPUBLIC OF 10-2017-0090616 07/17/2017. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 11/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024, 03/27/2025, 06/04/2025, 09/15/2025, and 11/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6-8 and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 12,219,262 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 12,219,262 B2
Instant Application:-18/949,072
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving a size of a subblock based on a size of a current block; partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock, wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on depth information, and wherein the depth information indicates the number of partitioning times of the current block; and performing inverse-transformation for the subblock, wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height, wherein the binary tree partitioning is not allowed for the current block having the width identical to the height, and wherein the binary tree partitioning is representative of a division type to divide one current block into two subblocks.
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving a size of a subblock based on a size of a current block; partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock; and performing inverse-transformation for the subblock, wherein depth information indicating the number of partitioning times for the current block is obtained from a bitstream.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 12,219,262 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 18/949,072. Similar rejections can be presented for US 12,192,522 B2, US 12,167,139 B2, US 12,028,503 B2, and US 11,297,309 B2.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
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.
Claim 8 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. The claim/claims is/are directed to “A method of transmitting a bitstream” but claim/claims does not have any steps related to “A method of transmitting a bitstream”, therefore, the scope of the claim/claims are/is vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20160277762 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Claim 7’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable recoding medium storing a bitstream …. comprising: …..” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(IIJ). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 7 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-5 refer to "An image decoding method”, Claim 6 refers to "An image encoding method”, Claim 7 refers to "A non-transitory computer-readable recoding medium”, and Claim 8 refers to "A method of transmitting a bit stream”. Claims 6-8 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-5, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-5, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system. It is requested to keep the scope of all the independent claims similar for advancing the prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20150172714 A1), hereinafter Wu, in view of Lee et al. (US 20180255295 A1), hereinafter Lee, further in view of Ikai et al. (US 20170134750 A1), hereinafter Ikai.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving a size of a subblock based on a size of a block ([0011], [0023]); partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the subblock; for the current block is obtained from a bitstream ([0015]-[0016]).
Wu discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section size of a current block; and performing inverse-transformation for the subblock,.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor teaches size of a current block ([0105]-[0107] , [0120], [0174], [0205]); wherein depth information indicating the number of partitioning times (Fig. 3); and performing inverse-transformation for the subblock ([0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to incorporate the teachings of Lee to enhance coding efficiency (Lee, [0020]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Wu in view of Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section based on the size of the subblock.
However, Ikai from the same or similar endeavor teaches based on the size of the subblock ([0127], [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Ikai to improve processing for segmentation (Ikai, [0008]-[0010]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Ikai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, in case the current block is square, a quadtree partitioning is performed for the current block, and wherein the quadtree partitioning is representative of a division type to divide one current block into four subblocks (Wu, [0011]-[0016], Lee, [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Ikai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on a predetermined index for a partitioning, and wherein, in case the current block is a 4Nx4N block, the current block is not partitioned, or the current block is partitioned into four 2Xx2N subblocks, or the current block is partitioned into sixteen NxN subblocks (Wu, [0011]-[0016], [0023], Lee, [0105]-[0108], [0120], [0174], [0205]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Ikai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selection information indicating whether a partitioning shape for transformation of the current block is determined adaptively is obtained from a bitstream, and wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on the selection information (It’s obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Ikai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode (It’s obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 6-8, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. 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, 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487