Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/03/2025 and 02/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,336 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘336 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-15 of the current application. The claims of the current application, which are directed to CRM storing computer instructions executed by one or more processors and to an encoder, perform decoding and encoding steps similar to those of the method of decoding and method of encoding of ‘336 claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2014/0092963).
As per claim 11, Wang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (paragraph 0126, the encoded bitstream may be transmitted to another device (e.g., video decoder 30) or archived for later transmission or retrieval), when parsed by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a video, the bitstream comprising (the method steps of claim 11 do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. 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 11 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 structure, 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 Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (paragraph 0126).
As per claims 12-15, the claims are dependent on claim 11; thus, analogous arguments applied to claim 11 are applicable for claims 12-15.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-10 would be allowable after overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 1, Wang (US 2014/0092963) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions for decoding a bitstream, that when executed by one or more processors (paragraph 0009), cause the one or more processors to: receive a bitstream comprising a coded video sequence (CVS) (encoded video bitstream as shown in fig. 3 or coded video sequence as taught in paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0051-0052) and a gradual decoding refresh (GDR) flag corresponding to the CVS (paragraph 0033, a flag is signaled, e.g., in the sequence parameter set, to indicate whether GDR is enabled. Alternatively, the flag may be signaled in other places, e.g., the video parameter set or the picture parameter set. The flag may be signaled by a video encoder in an encoded video bitstream. In turn, a decoder may receive such a flag in an encoded video bitstream, and use the flag to support GDR functions), wherein a value of the GDR flag is one (1) when a GDR picture is enabled in the CVS (paragraph 0052, the gradual_decoding_refresh _enabled_flag equal to 1 specifies, to the decoder, the presence of the gdr_foreground_ flag syntax element ISP…in the coded video sequence, wherein when gdr_foreground_ flag syntax element equal to 1 indicates that a slice or all slices belong(s) to the foreground region also referred to as refreshed region, as taught in paragraphs 0008 and 0043-0044; therefore, it is clear that a refresh region interpreted as GDR picture is enabled for the current picture within the CVS);….determine whether the GDR picture is enabled for the CVS based on the value of the GDR flag (paragraphs 0038, 0045, 0052 and 0137); and decoding the CVS based on the GDR flag (see fig. 3 and paragraph 0149).
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN et al. (US 2020/0177923) discloses wherein the GDR picture is associated with a GDR network abstract layer (NAL) unit type (GDR-NUT) (Abstract, table 7-1B and paragraph 0059); Hannuksela (US 2010/0189182) discloses the GDR picture…has a temporal identifier (TemporalID) equal to zero (paragraph 0183); and PETTERSSON et al. (US 2022/0060752) discloses wherein the bitstream further comprises a header including a syntax element indicating a picture order count of recovery point picture for the GDR picture (see paragraphs 0093 and 0233);
However, the prior art, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose the limitation “…wherein when the GDR picture is a first picture in the bitstream in decoding order or the first picture that follows an end of sequence (EOS) NAL unit in decoding order, a flag is set to one to prevent output of incorrect pictures” of claim 1.
Thus, the prior art does not disclose the aforementioned limitation used in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 1.
With regards to claim 6, same reasoning applied for claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are allowed for incorporating the allowable subject matter from claims 1 and 6 by dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482