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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 12 is 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.
As this is a method of transmission, the presence of the majority of the body of the claim being directed toward an encoding method renders the claim indefinite. As per MPEP §2173, it is possible that under a broadest reasonable reading, the particulars of the scope of the claim cannot be clearly ascertained whether the thrust lies in the transmission of a bitstream or encoding thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because ‘computer-readable medium’ is not clearly defined as being directed to only non-transitory forms of media. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims may be directed to any signal or carrier-based media.
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)(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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al., (US Patent No. 12,323,580 B2) referred to as CHANG hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, CHANG shows an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (FIG. 8, generally), the image decoding method comprising:
determining a prediction mode of a current block (Col. 25, line 64 - Col. 26, line 6 describes obtaining prediction information, which is also being interpreted as including mode of a current block.):
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction mode (Col. 25, line 64 - Col. 26, line 6 describes calculating a prediction block for the current block.); and reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block (Col. 26, lines 5-10 describe reconstructing a block. The 3rd paragraph of the Summary also discloses reconstructing the block.), wherein the prediction mode is determined based on template matching-based coding tool enabling information (Col. 26 describes how it is determined that OBMC is enabled, which is the template-based matching tool, wherein the 'templates' are represented by the various blending processes.).
Regarding claim 2, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes template matching-based screen content coding tool enabling information.
Regarding claim 3, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes intra block copy enabling information or intra template matching enabling information.
Regarding claim 4, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes template matching-based inter coding tool enabling information (Col. 1, lines 55-60 disclose generally how OBMC is an inter-based prediction tool and therefore the information shown in claim 1 would naturally be inter-based.).
Regarding claim 5, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 4 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes at least one of OBMC enabling information (Title, Abstract indicate the entire disclosed invention is geared toward OBMC among others.), ARMC enabling information, AMVP enabling information (Col. 11, lines 31-33), merge enabling information (Col. 11, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 6, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes template matching-based intra coding tool enabling information (Col. 13, lines 5-7 disclose signaling inter- or intra-prediction modes.).
Regarding claim 7, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 6 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes at least one of intra block copy enabling information (Col. 18, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information is obtained from a bitstream (Col. 3, lines 38-40 describes how the information is contained within a bitstream.).
Regarding claim 9, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 8 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information is included in one of a video parameter set, a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, a slice header or a picture header (Col. 12, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 10, CHANG shows an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
determining a prediction mode of a current block (Col. 11, lines 12-15):
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction mode (Col. 11, lines 50-65 disclose the general process.); and
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block (Col. 15, lines 55-57 disclose encoder-side reconstruction.),
wherein the prediction mode is determined based on template matching-based coding tool enabling information (Col. 26 describes how it is determined that OBMC is enabled, which is the template-based matching tool, wherein the 'templates' are represented by the various blending processes.).
Regarding claim 11, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 10 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information is encoded in a bitstream (Col. 3, lines 38-40 describes how the information is contained within a bitstream.).
Regarding claim 12, CHANG shows a method of transmitting a bitstream comprising:
transmitting a bitstream (Various portions of column 32 disclose the general task of transmitting this type of data.) generated by an image encoding method,
wherein the image encoding method comprises:
determining a prediction mode of a current block (Col. 11, lines 12-15):
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction mode (Col. 11, lines 50-65 disclose the general process.); and
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block (Col. 15, lines 55-57 disclose encoder-side reconstruction.),
wherein the prediction mode is determined based on template matching-based coding tool enabling information (Col. 26 describes how it is determined that OBMC is enabled, which is the template-based matching tool, wherein the 'templates' are represented by the various blending processes.).
Regarding claim 13, a bit stream generated by a method of claim 10 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(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 13 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which 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 CHANG which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Col. 32, lines 25-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights