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) 1, 3-8, and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1, 3-8 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,587 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of the reference application, thus granting a patent for the instant application would unduly extend the timewise monopoly afforded to the reference application in th event of allowance of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,573 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of the reference application, thus granting a patent for the instant application would unduly extend the timewise monopoly afforded to the reference application in th event of allowance of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,5612 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of the reference application, thus granting a patent for the instant application would unduly extend the timewise monopoly afforded to the reference application in th event of allowance of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 recite the limitations “determining the size or respective partitioning unit; and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. The examiner notes, in the applicant’s remarks filed 2/26/2026, the applicant cites [0559] and [0565] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing said limitations, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. [0559] teaches faces of an image when projected onto a shape such as a cube may be of different sizes. This teaching however does not recite a step of determining the size of the face(s) for performing padding on prediction units (PU) which constitute the face(s). Further, [0565] teaches different resizing processes may be performed on each respective face of the projected image. This teaching also does not recite a step of determining the size of a prediction unit (or a face of an image) for performing padding on the prediction unit (or face).
Claims 3-7 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (He) (US 2019/0215532) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang) (US 2017/0150186).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method of decoding an image with a decoding apparatus, comprising:
receiving a bitstream in which the image is encoded ([0109], an encoded bitstream 202 is received and decoded);
performing prediction for a current block included in the image to generate a prediction block ([0015], intra prediction is performed, [0109], a prediction image is generated);
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block ([0109], a reconstructed image is generated by adding at adder 226 the prediction block and a residual);
obtaining a reconstructed current image based on the reconstructed current block (FIG. 7, [0109], a reconstructed image is generated by adding at adder 226 the prediction block and a residual to create a reference frame using the current block and stored in reference picture store 264 (i.e. the current block is used to generate a reference frame)); and
performing a data processing on the reconstructed current image ([0109], the reconstructed current image also becomes a reference picture which is stored at reference picture store 264) based on data processing information included in the bitstream ([0144], the padded region size is signaled), wherein the data processing comprises padding at least one region to the reconstructed current image ([0112], padding of the reference image (i.e. the current frame after it is reconstructed and it becomes a reference frame) is performed using padding information).
He is silent about data processing information included in a SEI message; and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image; determining a size of respective identified partitioning unit; and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses data processing information included in a SEI message ([0170], filter information is signaled in a SEI, [0266] padding information is signaled in a syntax structure); and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image ([0266], [0322], boundary pixels are identified and padded based on the prediction unit (PU) size); determining a size of respective identified partitioning unit ([0266], [0322], boundary pixels are identified and padded based on the prediction unit (PU) size); and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit ([0266], [0322], boundary pixels are identified and padded based on the prediction unit (PU) size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of He for more efficient encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 3, He discloses wherein the data processing comprises resizing the reconstructed current image ([0109], [0112], padding of the reference image (the current image becomes a reference image after it is reconstructed) is performed using padding information).
Regarding claim 8, Drugeon discloses a method of encoding an image with an encoding apparatus, comprising:
performing prediction for a current block included in the image to generate a prediction block ([0015], intra prediction is performed, [0109], a prediction image is generated);
encoding the current block based on the prediction block into a bitstream ([0108], entropy prediction is performed); and
encoding data processing information into the bitstream ([0144], the padded region size is signaled),
wherein the data processing information is used for performing a data processing on a reconstructed current image, the reconstructed current image being an image obtained by decoding the bitstream ([0112], padding of the reference image is performed using padding information; FIG. 7, [0109], a reconstructed image is generated by adding at adder 226 the prediction block and a residual to create a reference frame using the current block and stored in reference picture store 264 (i.e. the current block is used to generate a reference frame)), and
wherein the data processing comprises padding at least one region to the reconstructed current image ([0112], padding of the reference image (i.e. the current frame after it is reconstructed and it becomes a reference frame) is performed using padding information).
He is silent about data processing information included in a SEI message; and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image; determining a size of respective identified partitioning unit; and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses data processing information included in a SEI message ([0170], filter information is signaled in a SEI, [0266] padding information is signaled in a syntax structure); and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image ([0266], [0322], boundary pixels are identified and padded based on the prediction unit (PU) size); determining a size of respective identified partitioning unit ([0266], [0322], boundary pixels are identified and padded based on the prediction unit (PU) size); and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit ([0266], [0322], boundary pixels are identified and padded based on the prediction unit (PU) size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of He for more efficient encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in analysis of claim 8 (see claim 8 above). He further discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream which is generated by a method of encoding an image ([0109], an encoded bitstream 202 is received and decoded), and transmitting the bitstream ([0109], an encoded bitstream 202 is received and decoded).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (He) (US 2019/0215532) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang) (US 2017/0150186), and further in view of Seo (US 2017/0201751).
Regarding claim 4-7, He discloses the method of claim 3 (see claim 3 above). He further discloses wherein the resizing is either increasing or decreasing the width or height of the reconstructed current image ([0112], padding of the reference image (i.e. the current frame after it is reconstructed and it becomes a reference frame) is performed using padding information, increasing the size of the image).
He in view of Zhang is silent about wherein the resizing is performed based on a flag indicating whether to enable the resizing indicating enable; and wherein, based on the flag indicating enable, the data processing information comprises resizing information for the resizing; and wherein the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed current image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height.
Seo from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the resizing is performed based on a flag indicating whether to enable the resizing indicating enable ([0135], The parameter ref_lod_enable_flag may indicate whether a scaled LOD image of the corresponding picture is generated; Fig. 16, [0088], the size of a reference image is changed by performing upscaling, [0182], changing the level of detail (LOD) of an image means changing the size of the image); and wherein, based on the flag indicating enable, the data processing information comprises resizing information for the resizing ([0135], The parameter ref_lod_enable_flag may indicate whether a scaled LOD image of the corresponding picture is generated; Fig. 16, [0088], the size of a reference image is changed by performing upscaling); and wherein the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed current image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height ([0088], [0089], [0099], scale factor S equals the ratio of the modified image to an unmodified image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Seo into the teachings of He in view of Zhang for improving encoding and decoding efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488