DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the specification objection, 112 rejections and the non-statutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection/rejections above have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim 2 is no longer coextensive in scope as claim 2 of the reference patent. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations of “wherein the predicted block is obtained by at least one of a spatial prediction or a temporal prediction” does not overcome the statutory double patenting rejection. Despite there being different claim language, the amendment is still coextensive in scope (i.e. MPEP 804.II(A) claims may be differently worded and still define the same invention). For example, Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,524 claims “a predicted block”. It is inherent (i.e. for one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of video compression) that a predicted block is obtained either by spatial/intra prediction or temporal/inter prediction.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/09/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patents # 9,319,692; 9,319,693; 10,694,186; 10,033,999 & 12,273,524 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “transmitting a bitstream generated based at least in part on the at least one data sub-stream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 previously defines a bitstream (i.e. A method of transmitting a bitstream of image data that is generated by an image coding method). It is unclear whether “a bitstream” in claim 3 refers to the same bitstream previously recited or to a different or additional bitstream. Therefore, claim 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to clarify whether “a bitstream” refers to the same or a different bitstream than that recited in the independent claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,273,524. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 of Instant App. 19/090,121
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,524
A method for coding an image, the method comprising:
A method for coding an image, the method comprising:
segmenting the image into a plurality of blocks, grouping the blocks into a predetermined number of rows of blocks, coding, using an entropy coding module, a current block of the rows of blocks, wherein the coding comprises:
segmenting the image into a plurality of blocks, grouping the blocks into a predetermined number of rows of blocks, coding, using an entropy coding module, a current block of the rows of blocks, wherein the coding comprises:
when the current block is a first block in an encoding order of a row that is not the first row of the image in the encoding order:
when the current block is a first block in an encoding order of a row that is not the first row of the image in the encoding order:
determining probabilities of symbol occurrence for the current block, the probabilities being those which have been determined by coding a predetermined block of at least one other row, wherein the predetermined block is the second block in the encoding order in the other row,
determining probabilities of symbol occurrence for the current block, the probabilities being those which have been determined by coding a predetermined block of at least one other row, wherein the predetermined block is the second block in the encoding order in the other row,
initializing state variables of the entropy coding module with the determined probabilities, and
initializing state variables of the entropy coding module with the determined probabilities, and
coding the current block, wherein coding the current block includes quantization of a transformed block obtained by transformation of a residual block that is produced by subtracting a predicted block from the current block; and
wherein coding the current block, wherein coding the current block includes quantization of a transformed block obtained by transformation of a residual block that is produced by subtracting a predicted block from the current block; and
generating at least one data sub-stream for the image.
generating at least one data sub-stream for the image.
The amended limitations of “wherein the predicted block is obtained by at least one of a spatial prediction or a temporal prediction” does not overcome the statutory double patenting rejection. Despite there being different claim language, the amendment is still coextensive in scope (i.e. MPEP 804.II(A) claims may be differently worded and still define the same invention). For example, Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,524 claims “a predicted block”. It is inherent (i.e. for one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of video compression) that a predicted block is obtained via either of spatial/intra prediction or temporal/inter prediction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under statutory double patenting set forth in this Office action.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 4 is allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights