DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/26/2026 and is being filed as a second Non-Final for the reasons presented below.
In the filed response, independent Claims 1 and 18 have been amended, with Claims 2 and 16 being canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-15, 17, and 18 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the incorporation of claim 16 which was previously identified as containing allowable subject matter (pgs. 12-13 of the last office action on 01/28/2026). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However after further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For these reasons, which are further discussed below, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. After further considering the amended limitation in claim 1, i.e. “wherein the bitstream includes a first data unit and a second data unit, the first data unit storing attribute information to be predicted by referring to other attribute information, the second data unit storing attribute information not to be predicted by referring to other attribute information” (emphasis added), it is not entirely clear whether the first instance of “other attribute information” is the same or is different than the second instance of “other attribute information”. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained. The same rationale also applies to claim 18 which recites similar limitations as claim 1. For this reason, Claims 1, 3-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please see office action below for further details.
3. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the objection to the specification (title of the invention) are acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
4. The Examiner is available to further discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
5. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1, 3-15, 17, and 18 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1, 3-15, 17, and 18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “wherein the bitstream includes a first data unit and a second data unit, the first data unit storing attribute information to be predicted by referring to other attribute information, the second data unit storing attribute information not to be predicted by referring to other attribute information” (emphasis added), however, it is not entirely clear whether the first instance of “other attribute information” that is referred to for predicting the stored attribute information in the first data unit is the same or is different than the second instance of “other attribute information” that is referred to when not predicting the stored attribute information in the second data unit. In other words, the claim can be interpreted both ways, where both instances of “other attribute information” can either refer to the same information or different information altogether. For the reasons given, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding Claims 3-15 and 17, these claims depend on Claim 1 above, and therefore include all of its features. For this reason, Claims 3-15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons presented above.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as Claim 1 above. For this reason, Claim 18 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights