DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,457,349 B2 (“Pat 349”) in view of US 10,992,944 (“Pat 944”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory recording medium having a program stored thereon, the program for coding an image, causing a processor to execute operations comprising: partitioning the image into tiles and slices; and coding the tiles and the slices resulting from the partitioning, wherein a type of each of the slices is either a normal slice type or a dependent slice type, a slice of the normal slice type is coded without referring to a different slice and has, in a header, information that is required to decode the slice, and can be used for a different slice, a slice of the dependent slice type is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, and when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.
However, claim of Pat 349 does not disclose each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
Pat 944 discloses each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices (claim 1: each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 349 and Pat 944 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Pat 944 further discloses a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted (claim 1: a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,871,019 B2 (“Pat 019”) in view of US 10,992,944 (“Pat 944”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 2 of Pat 019 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream and computer executable instructions, which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to transmit the bitstream via a network, the bitstream being generated by the computer by performing the steps of: partitioning an image into tiles and slices; and coding the tiles and slices, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice or a dependent slice, wherein the normal slice is coded without referring to an another slice and has, in a header, information that is required to decode the slice, and can be used for an another slice, wherein the dependent slice is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, and wherein (i) a tile does not include a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the tile or (ii) when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.
However, claims of Pat 019 does not disclose each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
Pat 944 discloses each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices (claim 1: each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 019 and Pat 944 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Pat 944 further discloses a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted (claim 1: a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,992,944 (“Pat 944”) in view of US 12,457,349 B2 (“Pat 349”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 944 discloses Circuitry for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding tiles and slices into which an image is partitioned, the circuitry executing operations comprising: obtaining, from the bitstream, a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted; and decoding the coded signal based on the restriction indicator, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a header, information used for an other slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, when the normal slice starts from a position other than a beginning of a first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile does not start from the dependent slice, and each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
However, claims of Pat 944 does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein a computer program and when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.
Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein a computer program (claim 1) and when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile (claim 1: when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 944 and Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream (claim 1 of Pat 349) generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,397,593 (“Pat 593”) in view of US 12,457,349 B2 (“Pat 349”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 593 discloses a non-transitory recording medium having a program stored thereon, the program for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding tiles and slices into which an image is partitioned, causing the processor to execute operations comprising: obtaining, from the bitstream, a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted; and decoding the coded signal based on the restriction indicator, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a header, information used for an other slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, when the normal slice starts from a position other than a beginning of a first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile does not start from the dependent slice, and each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
However, claims of Pat 593 does not disclose when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.
Pat 349 discloses when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile (claim 1: when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 593 and Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream (claim 1 of Pat 349) generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,948,942 (“Pat 942”) in view of US 12,457,349 B2 (“Pat 349”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 942 discloses An image decoding apparatus for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding tiles and slices into which an image is partitioned, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory having a program stored thereon, the program causing the processor to execute operations including: obtaining, from the bitstream, a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted; and decoding the coded signal based on the restriction indicator, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a header, information used for an other slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, when the normal slice starts from a position other than a beginning of a first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile does not start from the dependent slice, and each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
However, claims of Pat 942 does not disclose when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.
Pat 349 discloses when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile (claim 1: when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 942 and Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream (claim 1 of Pat 349) generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,602,825 (“Pat 825”) in view of US 12,457,349 B2 (“Pat 349”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 825 discloses An image decoding method for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding tiles and slices into which an image is partitioned, the method comprising: obtaining, from the bitstream, a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted; and decoding the coded signal based on the restriction indicator, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a header, information used for an other slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, when the normal slice starts from a position other than a beginning of a first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile does not start from the dependent slice, and each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
However, claims of Pat 825 does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein a computer program when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.
Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein a computer program (claim 1) and when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile (claim 1: when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 825 and Pat 349 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream (claim 1 of Pat 349) generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that when a first tile includes a normal slice starting from a position other than a beginning of the first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile includes a normal slice starting from a beginning of the second tile because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,277,229 B2 (“Pat 229”) in view of US 10,992,944 (“Pat 944”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 229 discloses An image coding apparatus which codes tiles and slices into which an image is partitioned, to generate a bitstream, the apparatus including a processor, the processor executing operations comprising: partitioning the image into the tiles and the slices; and coding the tiles and slices resulting from the partitioning, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a header, information used for an other slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, in the partitioning, when the normal slice starts from a position other than a beginning of a first tile, the image is partitioned into the tiles and the slices to prevent a second tile coded next to the first tile from starting from the dependent slice, and when a slice at a beginning of a third tile is the dependent slice, the dependent slice includes the whole third tile.
However, claim of Pat 349 does not disclose each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
Pat 944 discloses each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices (claim 1: each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 229 and Pat 944 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Pat 944 further discloses a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted (claim 1: a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,036,697 B2 (“Pat 697”) in view of US 10,397,593 (“Pat 593”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 697 discloses an image decoding apparatus which decodes a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding tiles and slices into which an image is partitioned, the apparatus comprising a decoding unit configured to decode the coded signal, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a header, information used for an other slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, and when the normal slice starts from a position other than a beginning of a first tile, a second tile coded next to the first tile does not start from the dependent slice,. wherein when a slice at a beginning of a third tile is the dependent slice, the dependent slice includes the whole third tile.
However, claim of Pat 697 does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein a computer program and each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.
Pat 593 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein a computer program (claim 1) and each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices (claim 1: each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
Consider application claim 2, the combination of Pat 697 and Pat 593 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing (claim 1 of Pat 593) a bitstream generated by performing the operations recited in application claim 1 (see rejection of application claim 1).
Pat 593 further discloses a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted (claim 1: a restriction indicator indicating that partitioning of a picture is restricted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the known element that each of the tiles is subdivided into an integer number of slices because such incorporation would improve encoding efficiency.
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 1-2 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.
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation "the type". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Schierl et al. (US 2015/0208095 A1).
Consider claim 2, a bitstream generated by a method, the method comprising… 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 computer-readable medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 2 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure 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 Schierl which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0357] – [0368]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486