DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response application no. 19/094,147 filed on March 28, 2025 in which claim 1 is presented for examination.
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 .
Double Patenting
2. 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 of U.S. Patent no. 9,414,061 to Lim et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1, 3-4 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 9,414,061 also calls for similar limitations, in fact claim 1 of Patent no. 9,414,061
calls for a motion vector prediction method of performing motion vector prediction for a current block in a picture, the motion vector prediction method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode or decode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; and deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining, (i) the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and (ii) the candidate is derived, from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
Therefore, when comparing claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the cited Patent, the preamble of the claims are different. The instant application calls for a decoding method for decoding a current block of a picture from an encoded bitstream while the cited Patent calls for a motion vector predictor method. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent no. 10,027,973 to Lim et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1-3 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 10,027,973 also calls for deriving a motion vector based on a selected candidate, and the candidate is determined to be derived from a first motion vector when the type of the current reference and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and the candidate is derived from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
Therefore, when comparing claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the cited Patent, the preambles of the claims are different. The instant application calls for a decoding method for decoding a current block of a picture from an encoded bitstream while the cited Patent calls for a motion vector predictor method. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
5. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent no. 10,368,085.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 10,368,085 also calls for deriving a motion vector based on a selected candidate, and the candidate is determined to be derived from a first motion vector when the type of the current reference and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and the candidate is derived from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
Therefore, when comparing claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the cited Patent, the preamble of the claims are different. The instant application calls for a decoding method for decoding a current block of a picture from an encoded bitstream while the cited Patent calls for a motion vector predictor method. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
6. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent no. 10,715,826.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1-3 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 10,715,826 also calls for deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Therefore, when comparing claim 4 of the instant application and claim 1 of the cited Patent, the preamble of the claims are different. The instant application calls for a decoding method for decoding a current block of a picture from an encoded bitstream while the cited Patent calls for a motion vector predictor method. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
7. Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent no. 10,992,949 to Lim et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 4-9 of the instant application and claims 1-3 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 10,992,949 also calls for deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to decode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture identified by a flag in a slice header; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; and deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining, (i) the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and (ii) the candidate is derived, from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
8. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent no. 11,451,817 to Lim et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1-3 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 11,451,817 also calls for deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture identified by a flag in a slice header; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining, (i) the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and (ii) the candidate is derived, from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
9. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent no. 11,902,562 to Lim et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1-6 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 11,902,562 also calls for similar limitations, a close look at claim 1 of 11,902,562 will show that claim 1 calls for a decoding method for decoding a current block of a picture from an encoded bitstream, the decoding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to decode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture identified by a flag in a slice header; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; decoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and decoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining, (i) the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and (ii) the candidate is derived, from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
10. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent no. 12,289,464 to Lim et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1-3 of referenced Patent are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 1 calls for a streaming server for distributing a coded picture, the coded picture being coded by a coding method, the coding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to encode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture different from the current picture; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; encoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and encoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining of whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same.
Patent no. 12,289,464 also calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of the cited Patent calls for a decoding method for decoding a current block of a picture from an encoded bitstream, the decoding method comprising: deriving a candidate for a motion vector predictor to decode a current motion vector of the current block, from a first motion vector of a first block which is (i) a neighboring block that is included in a current picture including the current block and is adjacent to the current block or (ii) a co-located block included in a picture identified by a flag and an index, wherein the flag identifies a reference picture list and the index identifies the picture in the reference picture list; adding the derived candidate to a candidate list; deriving at least one motion vector predictor based on a candidate selected from the candidate list; decoding the current motion vector using the derived at least one motion vector predictor; and decoding the current block using the current motion vector, wherein the deriving of the candidate includes determining whether to derive the candidate from the first motion vector, based on a type of a current reference picture and a type of a first reference picture, the current reference picture being referred to from the current block using the current motion vector, and the first reference picture being referred to from the first block using the first motion vector, each of the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture is one of a long term reference picture and a short term reference picture, and in the determining, (i) the candidate is determined to be derived from the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are the same, and (ii) the candidate is derived, from the candidate list which includes one or more candidates, by using a motion vector other than the first motion vector when the type of the current reference picture and the type of the first reference picture are different.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wahadaniah et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0107963) teaches image coding method, image decoding method, image coding apparatus, and image decoding apparatus.
Sugio et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0003850) teaches image decoding method, image coding method, image decoding apparatus, image coding apparatus, and image coding and decoding.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights