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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: encoding unit in claim 1 and decoding unit in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope 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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,025,938. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the application is broader than the one in the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0101046 A1 (“Korodi”) in view of WD5: Working Draft 5 of High-Efficiency Video Coding (JCTVC-G1103) (“Bross”) (Note: Korodi and Bross are included in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Korodi discloses an encoding apparatus (e.g. see encoder 10 in Fig. 1), comprising:
an encoding unit configured to:
acquire a significance map (e.g. see significance map, paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044]) of quantized transform coefficients of 4 * 4 blocks as a target (e.g. see block or matrix of quantized transform domain coefficients, e.g. see at least paragraph [0006], and see 4x4 luma block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0042]-[0044]), wherein the significance map is based on application of a scanning order to the quantized transform coefficients (e.g. see significance map of quantized transform domain coefficients is converted to a vector in accordance with the scan order, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0093]-[0104]);
share a table for assignment of contexts between a context assigned to a luma component of the quantized transform coefficients of a 4 * 4 block and a context assigned to a chroma component of the quantized transform coefficients of the 4 * 4 block, wherein the table is based on a mapping of a position in the significance map of the quantized transform coefficients to a corresponding context index increment using a single 15 element lookup table (e.g. see context assignment, paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044], e.g. see context assignment in Figs. 3-4, e.g. see P4-9, in Fig. 4 that signifies 9 contexts to the 9 distinct parts of the 4x4 block (paragraph [0056]), may be used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and see context index increment in at least paragraphs [0106]-[0111]; the same single 15-element lookup table shown in paragraph [0110] is used if P4-9 is used or same for both 4x4 luma and chroma); and
apply a significance map encoding process (e.g. see encoding a significance map, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044]) in a state where encoding coefficients that share the contexts have a same grouping (e.g. see 4x4 luma and 4x4 chroma may both use a P4-9 partition set, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), wherein
the significance map encoding process uses a same number of contexts and a same context index increment mapping for the luma component and the chroma component (context assignment, paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044], e.g. see context assignment in Figs. 3-4, e.g. see P4-9, in Fig. 4 that signifies 9 contexts to the 9 distinct parts of the 4x4 block (paragraph [0056]), may be used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and see context index increment in at least paragraphs [0106]-[0111]; thus, if P4-9 is used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, then the same mapping would be used for both luma and chroma in paragraph [0110]), and
the single 15 element lookup table is [0,1,2,3,4,5,2,3,6,6,7,7,8,8,7] (e.g. see P4-9 may be used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, paragraphs [0065]-[0066], e.g. see paragraphs [0106]-[0110] and Table after [0110] (shown below for the 4x4): P4-9
Specification of ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
0
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
6
6
7
7
8
8
7
).
Although Korodi discloses the single 15 element lookup table is [0,1,2,3,4,5,2,3,6,6,7,7,8,8,7], it is noted Korodi differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose [0,1,4,5,2,3,4,5,6,6,8,8,7,7,8]. Bross however, teaches [0,1,4,5,2,3,4,5,6,6,8,8,7,7,8] (e.g. see
Specification of ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
0
1
4
5
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
8
7
7
8
, Table 9-40 on page 187, Section 9.2.3.1.1.5 Derivation process of ctxIdxInc for the syntax element significant_coeff_flag).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the references of Korodi and Bross before him/her, to incorporate Bross into Korodi in order to conform to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard for higher compression and flexible coded video representation for a wide variety of network environments.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Korodi et al., Encoding and decoding significant coefficient flags for small Transform Units using partition sets (JCTVC-G657) (in the IDS)
Hsu et al., US 2015/0010055 A1, discloses method and apparatus for unification of significance map context selection (in the IDS)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619