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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 5, 7, 9, and 11 partially and respectively recite: “…to determine includes a whether a…”. The Examiner believes this to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21, 24-28 are 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.
Claim 21, line 3 partially recites “a picture parameter set”. The Examiner is unclear on whether the “a picture parameter set” of line 3 is the same picture parameter set as in line 2 or a different picture parameter set than the one recited in line 2.
In regards to claim 24, the examiner is unclear on whether said claim 24 is intended to be a computer-readable memory or storage storing a bitstream or if it is intended to be a decoding method since the limitations are directed to a decoding/parsing method.
In the case that claim 24 is intended to be a computer-readable memory or storage storing a bitstream:
Claim 24 recites “One or more computer-readable memory or storage devices storing encoded data as part of a bitstream, the encoded data being organized to facilitate decoding by a video decoder performing operations, the video decoder being implemented using memory and one or more processing units, the operations comprising:”. Claim 24 is directed to a memory or storage device storing a bitstream of video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is processed in a decoding device. These elements or 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 memory/storage merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation/parsing of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable memory/storage when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, is 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.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim could instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video into a computer-readable memory/storage, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprising:”.
Claim 25 is directed to a computing device, in this case a video encoder. However, there is no mention of any component(s) or structure associated with said device. The Examiner notes the device is limited by an active step and it is unclear on whether the intention of the Applicant was for claim 25 to be a device claim or a process claim.
Claim 26 is directed to a method for decoding a plurality of pictures. Said claim is limited by a series of steps for parsing flags and syntax structures, however, there is no step for the actual decoding of the plurality of pictures.
Claim 27 is directed to a method for encoding a plurality of pictures. Said claim is limited by active steps for providing and including a series of flags and syntax structures. However, there is no step that describes any picture being encoded.
Claim 28 recites “A bitstream of compressed video data, including a computer readable storage medium storing the compressed video data, including a plurality of pictures, each picture including a picture parameter set, the bitstream characterized by comprising:”. It is not clear on how a bitstream of video data can include a computer readable storage medium, or if the Applicant intended for the computer readable storage medium to store said bitstream that is characterized by the limitations of the claim.
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, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,341,685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious for a bitstream containing video data to comprise prediction unit(s) and/or transform unit(s).
Claims 21, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,102,514. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious for a received video data bitstream to contain transform unit(s) and/or prediction unit(s).
Claims 21, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,317,121. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to receive a bitstream that includes picture(s), coding unit(s), transform unit(s), and/or prediction unit(s).
Claims 21, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious for a received video data bitstream to contain transform unit(s) and/or prediction unit(s).
Claims 21, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious for a received video data bitstream to contain transform unit(s) and/or prediction unit(s).
Claims 21, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is known in the field of video coding that flags/syntax structure present in the picture parameter set are flags and syntaxes that are adaptable per picture in the plurality of pictures of a coded video sequence.
Claims 21, 24, and 25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 30 of copending Application No. 17/743,168 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious for a received video data bitstream to contain transform unit(s) and/or prediction unit(s).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Boyce, J.,”Conditional SPS extension syntax for RExt, SHVC, and MV-HEVC”, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 15th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 23 Oct. – 1 Nov. 2013, Document: JCTVC-O0142.
“High Efficiency Video Coding”, Series H: Audiovisual and Multimedia Systems; Infrastructure of audiovisual services – Coding of moving video, ITU-T Telecommunications Standardization Sector of ITU, H.265, April 2013, 317 pgs.
K. Minoo, et al., “Increased resolution for scaled reference layer offset”, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JCTVC-Q0119rl, April 2014.
J. Chen, et al., “MV-HEVC/SHVC HLS: On signaling of scaled reference offset”, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, Vol. 7, No. 6, December 1, 2013, pp. 1001-1016.
G. Sullivan, et al., “Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard”, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol.22, No.12, December 2012.
Y. Ye, et al., “SHVC HLS: On picture level resampling phase filter selection”, 17th JCT-VC Meeting (Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG 16), March 18, 2014.
Yu, Y., et al., “Some Syntax Modifications for HEVC Range Extension”, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding Extensions of ITU-T SG 16WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JCTVC-P0166, 9-17 January 2014.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482