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 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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13: A method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method … is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream, followed by a recitation that the bitstream was generated by a encoding method. In other words, the transmitting method is just transmitting the bitstream. The bitstream being transmitted has no disclosed or claim-defined structure that differentiates the claimed data stream from any other data stream/transmitting. Applicant is advised to change the claim limitations to active verbs that encode this bitstream.
According to MPEP 2173.02(II), claim 13 does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision:
In reviewing a claim for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the examiner must consider the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. See, e.g., Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). …
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The bitstream being transmitted in claim 13 fails the notice function required by 112(b) because it does not provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. For example, how would one of ordinary skill in the art determine whether a compact disc with a recorded bitstream infringes claim 13? The claimed (and disclosed) data stream has no particular structure, arrangement, indicia or anything else that would distinguish the stored data stream from any other bitstream. In other words, once the encoding method has completed operations and generates an (encoded) data stream there is nothing within the data stream itself that differs from another data stream other than the video data content. The metes and bounds of claim 13 are therefore not defined by the encoding method but instead by transmission of the data stream which is a wholly unclear and indefinite entity in and of itself.
Claim 13 is recommended to be re-written as a method claim to carry out the steps of encoding a bitstream. Otherwise, transmission of any bitstream can be used to reject the claimed method of transmitting a bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SKUPIN et al., (US 2024/0214612).
Regarding claim 1: SKUPIN teaches an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus [¶0045 teaches: The decoder 22 decodes from the data stream 10, for each sub-picture 24 of each picture 18; and ¶0129 teaches: Although some aspects have been described in the context of an apparatus, it is clear that these aspects also represent a description of the corresponding method], the image decoding method comprising: obtaining video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit type information of a current picture from a bitstream [¶0041 teaches: the NAL types of NAL units 34 of sub-pictures 24 of the starting picture which are set to IDR, CRA or BLA may not be associated with the same NAL unit type in the corresponding version 34′ and data stream 10 as it would be a requirement of the data stream that if one of the sub-picture bitstreams has one of these NAL unit types, all others would have to have the same NAL unit type.]; determining a NAL unit type of each of a plurality of slices included in the current picture, based on the obtained VCL NAL unit type information [¶0045 teaches: The sub-picture related information for a certain sub-picture 24 may, for instance, be the syntax element indicating the NAL unit type of the one or more NAL units 34′ into which the respective sub-picture 24 is coded.]; and decoding the plurality of slices based on the determined NAL unit type [Claim 31 teaches: decoding a first NAL unit type for a first subpicture of the picture and a second NAL unit type of a second subpicture of the picture, wherein the first NAL unit type is different than the second NAL unit type], wherein the current picture includes a first subpicture and a second subpicture having different NAL unit types [Claim 31 teaches: wherein the first NAL unit type is different than the second NAL unit type], based on at least some of the plurality of slices having different NAL unit types, wherein a NAL unit type of the second subpicture is determined based on a NAL unit type of the first subpicture [¶0045 teaches: NAL units 34′ having such sub-picture related information 40 may have its associated sub-block 24 coded therein using coding dependencies on other sub-blocks. In particular, the sub-picture related information 40 may comprise an integer-valued syntax element for each sub-picture 24 which discriminates between a plurality of NAL unit types a first subset of one or more NAL unit types of which corresponds to the first state, i.e., the sub-picture RAP state, and a second subset of one or more NAL unit types of which correspond to the second state, i.e., the non-RAP state.], wherein whether at least some of the plurality of slices have different NAL unit types is determined based on first information obtained from the bitstream [¶0128 teaches: signaling granularity indication 44 which could be named mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag which, when assuming a first granularity or first state such as 0, indicates that, for each picture of the set of one or more pictures, the sub-picture related information assumes a common state], wherein a first value of the first information specifies that at least some of the plurality of slices have different NAL unit types, wherein a second value of the first information specifies that the plurality of slices have the same NAL unit type [¶0128 teaches: In other words, mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag assuming a first state such as being equal to 0, could indicate that the value of nal_unit_type shall be the same for all coded slice NAL units of a picture and, thus, for all sub-pictures within one picture. Otherwise, however, if mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag assumes the other state, e.g. is equal to 1, this may indicate that the VCL NAL units of one or more subpictures of the picture all have a particular value of nal_unit_type such as one out of a NAL unit type set consisting of one or more of STSA_NUT, RADL_NUT, RASL_NUT, IDR_W_RADL, IDR_N_LP, and CRA_NUT, while the other VCL NAL units in the picture all have a different particular value of nal_unit_type, namely one out of a further set consisting of one or more of TRAIL_NUT, RADL_NUT, and RASL_NUT. In even other words,], and wherein all slices included in a subpicture in the current picture have the same NAL unit type.
Regarding claim 2: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1,
In addition, SKUPIN teaches wherein the second subpicture has a NAL unit type other than IDR_W_RADL and CRA_NUT [¶0128 teaches: this may indicate that the VCL NAL units of one or more subpictures of the picture all have a particular value of nal_unit_type such as one out of a NAL unit type set consisting of one or more of STSA_NUT, RADL_NUT, RASL_NUT, IDR_W_RADL, IDR_N_LP, and CRA_NUT, while the other VCL NAL units in the picture all have a different particular value of nal_unit_type, namely one out of a further set consisting of one or more of TRAIL_NUT, RADL_NUT, and RASL_NUT (i.e. type other than type other than IDR_W_RADL and CRA_NUT)], based on the first subpicture having a NAL unit type equal to IDR_N_LP.
Regarding claim 3: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 2,
In addition, SKUPIN teaches wherein the second subpicture follows the first subpicture in decoding order and output order [¶0056 teaches: decoding the second sub-picture 24 of the current picture or access unit in coding/decoding order 58.].
Regarding claim 4: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1,
In addition, SKUPIN teaches wherein the plurality of slices have a NAL unit type other than GDR_NUT [¶0128 teaches: VCL NAL units of one or more subpictures of the picture all have a particular value of nal_unit_type such as one out of a NAL unit type set consisting of one or more of STSA_NUT, RADL_NUT, RASL_NUT, IDR_W_RADL, IDR_N_LP, and CRA_NUT, while the other VCL NAL units in the picture all have a different particular value of nal_unit_type (i.e. NAL unit type different than GDR_NUT)].
Regarding claim 5: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1,
In addition, SKUPIN teaches the second subpicture has a NAL unit type other than RADL_NUT and RASL_NUT, based on the first subpicture having a NAL unit type equal to one of IDR_W_RADL, IDR_N_LP, or CRA_ NUT [¶0128 teaches: VCL NAL units of one or more subpictures of the picture all have a particular value of nal_unit_type such as one out of a NAL unit type set consisting of one or more of STSA_NUT, RADL_NUT, RASL_NUT, IDR_W_RADL, IDR_N_LP, and CRA_NUT, while the other VCL NAL units in the picture all have a different particular value of nal_unit_type (i.e. NAL unit type different than NAL unit type other than RADL_NUT and RASL_NUT)].
Regarding claim 7: the claim is merely an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, and complementing the decoding method of claim 1. SKUPIN teaches encoding [encoding and decoding, Background]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is merely an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, and complementing the decoding method of claim 2. SKUPIN teaches encoding [encoding and decoding, Background]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 9: the claim is merely an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, and complementing the decoding method of claim 3. SKUPIN teaches encoding [encoding and decoding, Background]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 10: the claim is merely an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, and complementing the decoding method of claim 4. SKUPIN teaches encoding [encoding and decoding, Background]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 11: the claim is merely an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, and complementing the decoding method of claim 5. SKUPIN teaches encoding [encoding and decoding, Background]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies equally to this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, HENDRY et al., (US 2023/00300339) teaches a mixed NAL unit type based video encoding and decoding method and related encoder and decoder; and
WANG et al., (US 2022/0377384) teaches techniques that can be used by video encoders and decoders for video encoding or decoding, and includes constraints, restrictions and signalling for subpictures, slices, and tiles.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights