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 .
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
For reference, claim 3 recites “A computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding/decoding method [steps of encoding method].
This claim is directed to mere data storage that results from an upstream/downstream process (encoding/decoding method) that has no definitive relationship with and is wholly separate from the storage medium (non-transitory computer-readable medium) being claimed.
Significantly, the claimed storage medium is NOT implementing the encoding method in claim 3; no instructions/steps are being executed by a processor to perform the encoding/decoding method. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data stream output from the encoding method. In other words, claim 3 is directed to a mere computer-readable medium storing data content (a data stream generated by an encoding method).
To be clear, Applicant has not used the standard CRM (computer readable media) claim formats of a) “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when implemented by a processor, perform an encoding method [steps of encoding method]” or a b) non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a specified method that was held to recite patent-eligible product under 35 USC 101 by In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and endorsed by the USPTO in 77 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Examples: Abstract Ideas at 1-3, 8-10.
Such standard CRM claim formats that recite execution/implementation of a method are also not subject to a nonfunctional descriptive material claim interpretation because such a claimed media does not merely store output data but instead stores functional, method steps that have a functional relationship with the media.
Applicant has deviated substantially from such standard-format CRM claims by positively reciting only the storing of a data stream while the generation thereof by an “encoding method” is ancillary, occurs before the claimed storing by the medium, and does not require anything functional to occur in or to the medium besides mere storing.
Under MPEP 2111.05(III), claim 3’s storage medium storing a data stream is merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between a) the stored data (data stream) and medium or b) the stored data (data stream) and the encoding method. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As such, claim 3 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application such as, for example, a compact disc storing Abbey Road by the Beatles. For the sake of compact prosecution, however, claim 3 has been rejected based on prior art that actually discloses the method of generating the stored data (data stream).
Further in regards to In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) note that the presently claimed invention differs significantly from Lowry’s claims. Lowry’s claim 1 recites “A memory for storing data for access by an application program being executed on a data processing system, comprising [data structures including ADO (attribute data objects)].
In Lowry, the Federal Circuit stated:
Nor are the data structures analogous to printed matter. Lowry's ADOs do not represent merely underlying data in a database. ADOs contain both information used by application programs and information regarding their physical interrelationships within a memory. Lowry's claims dictate how application programs manage information. Thus, Lowry's claims define functional characteristics of the memory.
Lowry’s ADOs (Attribute Data Objects) contain information regarding their physical interrelationships with the carrier (a memory) and Lowry’s claims dictate how the application programs manage information. According to Lowry “ADOs have both hierarchical and non-hierarchical interrelationships” with rules that govern these relationships which are recited in the claims and which form functional relationships with the medium.
But unlike Lowry, the claimed invention has no functional relationship between the product (computer readable medium) and the printed matter (the stored data stream) and no functional relationship could exist possibly between the product and a processor because no processor is recited in the claim. Instead, a data stream is merely stored; the data stream itself is not defined within the claim and the computer readable medium solely acts as a carrier or substrate for storing the data stream.
As further evidence that the medium is a mere carrier of information note that that the data stream being stored is an end product or output of the encoding/decoding method such that the only functional role played by the medium solely consists of storing information.
In further contrast to Lowry, instant claim 3 merely stores a raw data stream having no claimed organization or relationship to the carrier (readable medium). In other words, claim 3 merely recites storage of the information content (bitstream).
In Lowry, the Federal Circuit goes on to point out that:
Indeed, Lowry does not seek to patent the Attributive data model in the abstract. Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database. Rather, Lowry's data structures impose a physical organization on the data.
In sharp contrast to Lowry, Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a data stream in the abstract. In other words, the claims seek to patent the content of the information (data stream with encoded video content). Moreover, this stored data stream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the data stream and the storage medium.
Furthermore, instant claim 3 is analogous to the memory stick storing tables of batting averages in which the computer readable medium is merely a support for the information (data stream) consistent with the example in MPEP 2111.05(III) which states.
However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer” MPEP 2111.05(III) Machine-readable media
In conclusion, claim(s) 3is directed to mere data content (data stream generated by the recited encoding method) stored as a data stream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight.
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
Claim(s) 23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1of U.S. Patent No. 9,584,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patent claim 1. The difference between the instant claim examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicted patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed int eh conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 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, David Czekaj can be reached on 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights