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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, , with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 1102(a)(1), based on the H.265 of claims 1, 13-15, and 19 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s argument based on H.265’s failure to disclose payload type 203 is not persuasive because the claims recite payload types 0, 1, 130, or 203 in the alternative, and H.265 discloses the recited rules for payload types 0, 1, and 130. However, upon further consideration, the cited portions of H.265 identify filler payload and its syntax and do not disclose that an SEI message having a filler payload type is disallowed from being contained in a scalable-nesting SEI message. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 13–15, and 19 over H.265 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to claim 20. The limitations defining the generation and informational content of the stored bitstream do not establish a functional relationship with the claimed recording medium and are not accorded patentable weight. H.265 discloses a video bitstream stored on a non-transitory recording medium. Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over H.265 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by H.265 et al. (SERIES H: AUDIOVISUAL AND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS Infrastructure of audiovisual services – Coding of moving video; High efficiency video coding; Recommendation ITU-T H.265- 11/2019), hereinafter referred to as H.265.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream 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 computer-readable recording 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 “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 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 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 non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing data and is anticipated by H.265 which recites a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (See H.265, p.1 ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13–15, and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to image and video coding and decoding.
Applicant has uniquely claimed distinct features in the independent claim 1, which in combination with the other features are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record. The distinct features include “when an SEI NAL unit contains an SEI message with a payload type of filler payload, the SEI NAL unit is disallowed to contain any other SEI message with a payload type not equal to filler payload.”
H.265, the closest prior art of record, discloses many of the limitations of the claims. However, H.265, either, individually or in combination with other prior art of record (See PTO-892), fails to anticipate or render obvious the above-cited limitations.
The independent claims 15 and 19 recite features similar to those discussed above and therefore allowable for analogous reasons.
The dependent claims 13 and 14 are allowed for the same reasons as those supporting the allowability of the corresponding independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights