DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent Claim 2 recites “wherein the modification parameter for the long term reference picture is a difference between a value of MaxPOCSetlndex of a decoded reference picture of the current picture and a value of MaxPOCSetlndex of the current picture.” Dependent Claims 3-4, 6 recite “wherein said modification parameter is a POC cycle parameter … is an indicator to start another POC cycle,” which replace the modification parameter definition of Claim 2 and thus these claims fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50).
The claims are directed to statutory categories of articles of manufacture (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea directed to data: “a bitstream.”
Data has been consistently treated as an abstract idea. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream that is generated by a coding method”, do not seem to change the character of the claim as being directed to data. Storing describes an ancillary property of data (which is necessarily stored or transmitted), it is a well-established activity in the art, and it does not change its nature as data. Further describing information by its method of production does not impose a meaningful limitation on the data being claimed. See, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The Inventive Concept appears to be attributed to the content of the data or to content that is a product-by-process that is external to the claimed subject matter.
The claims should be cancelled or amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US to 20090010330 to Tahara (“Tahara”) in view of US 20090213938 to Lee (“Lee”) and in view of US 4577319 to Takeuchi (“Takeuchi”).
Regarding Claim 2: “A method for decoding a video bitstream comprising:
receiving a bitstream comprising transform coefficients; (As shown in Tahara, Fig. 1, the encoded bitstream comprises transform coefficients from transformer 110. A decoder operates in reverse, where a “Decoding engine 32 parses the encoded video data bitstream” which comprises the transform coefficients. Lee, Paragraph 72 and Figs. 1-2.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Tahara to perform video decoding steps taught in Lee, because both references are directed to features of “(MPEG-4) Part 10 Advanced Video Coding (AVC)”. See Tahara, Paragraph 4 and Lee Paragraphs 3, 72.)
determining a picture order count (POC) of a current picture for decoding, (“The MPEG-4 AVC standard … uses Picture Order Count (POC) to indicate relative distances between coded pictures.” Tahara, Paragraph 9.)
identifying said decoded reference picture of said current picture from a decoded picture buffer, based on said picture order count (POC) of the current picture and said reference description; (“In the MPEG-4 AVC standard, multiple reference pictures can be used for inter-prediction, with a reference picture index coded to indicate which of the multiple reference pictures is used,” where reference pictures reside in a reference picture buffer. Tahara, Paragraphs 7, 42. “Picture Order Count (POC) to indicate relative distances between coded pictures. Several methods are provided for coding the picture order count of each slice, including coding of a delta_pic_order_cnt field in the slice header.” Tahara, Paragraph 9.)
generating an inter-frame prediction signal based on said decoded reference picture; (“In the MPEG-4 AVC standard, multiple reference pictures can be used for inter-prediction, with a reference picture index coded to indicate which of the multiple reference pictures is used.” Tahara, Paragraph 7.)
decoding said current picture using said inter-frame prediction signal; and (“MPEG-4 AVC standard … used in encoding and decoding” Lee, Paragraph 72 and Figs. 1-2. For example “The decoded video data in reconstruction buffer 38 may be used to provide reference frames used by decoding engine 32 in decoding of predictively coded video data obtained from receive buffer 30.” in Lee, Paragraph 72 and Figs. 1-2. See statement of motivation above.)
buffering said decoded picture in said decoded picture buffer for future prediction.” (“Reconstruction buffer 38 stores decoded video data that has been decoded and reconstructed by decoding engine 32.” Lee, Paragraph 68 and Fig. 2. See statement of motivation above.)
receiving a reference description for decoded reference pictures from said bitstream; … wherein said reference description includes a modification parameter for a long term reference picture, … wherein the modification parameter for the long term reference picture is a difference between a value of MaxPOCSetlndex of a decoded reference picture of the current picture and a value of MaxPOCSetlndex of the current picture; (First note that simply receiving a signal that is not further used in the claim is an obvious function of a decoder, for example “including coding of a delta_pic_order_cnt field in the slice header.” See Tahara, Paragraph 9. Describing the “reference description” a product-by-process does not limit the step of receiving to performing any particular function. See Claim Construction above.
Cumulatively, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, MaxPOCSetlndex performs the function of the POC of MPEG-4 AVC in that it represents overhead or upper bits of the POC as addressed below. See Specification, Paragraph 32-34, 42. Prior art teaches this feature: “The MPEG-4 AVC standard … uses Picture Order Count (POC) to indicate relative distances between coded pictures. Several methods are provided for coding the picture order count of each slice, including coding of a delta_pic_order_cnt field in the slice header,” which represents the difference for all the bits used to represent the POC. Tahara, Paragraph 9.)
wherein each of the decoded reference pictures is associated with a picture order count (POC), and the picture order counts (POCs) of the decoded reference pictures are ordered in a plurality of sets, each having a range [O .. MaxPOC-1] of POC values, and a particular value of MaxPOCSetlndex corresponds to a particular set of [O ... MaxPOC-1] of POC values, (See treatment of received signals above. Cumulatively, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, MaxPOCSetlndex represents represents overhead or upper bits of the POC. See Specification, Paragraph 32-34, 42. Prior art teaches several embodiments of this feature, for example “each picture/slice is associated with a counter field referred to as the Picture Order Count (POC),” which is not limited to MaxPOC and thus covers the claimed range of the values represented by MaxPOCSetIndex and embodiments where MaxPOC=1 or where the range of MaxPOCSetlndex=1. See Tahara, Paragraph 5.
Cumulatively, as noted in Takeuchi in the context of media coding, representing a digital number as separate sets for upper and lower bits is a known technique, useful for representing large numbers using word sizes having a preferred number of bits, for example: “16 bits of signal word (upper 8 bits and lower 8 bits) … where two 8-bit signal words (16 bits) are used for one sample” Takeuchi, Column 7, lines 40-62.
Also note that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Tahara and Lee to represent a POC number in terms of upper bits [i.e. MaxPOCSetlndex] and lower bits [i.e POC Index], in order to represent the coded number using words having a smaller number of bits. See Takeuchi, Column 1, lines 14-20.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 2, wherein said modification parameter is a POC cycle parameter.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, POC cycle parameter represents the number that is stored in the MaxPOCSetlndex, another words the overflow/upper bits of the POC. As noted above, “each picture/slice is associated with a counter field referred to as the Picture Order Count (POC),” which is not limited to MaxPOC and represents both the upper POC bits [POC cycle] and lower POC bits. See Tahara, Paragraph 5. Also note that this number [of upper bits] can be stored as a separate word as cited Takeuchi, Column 7, lines 40-62. See statement of motivation in Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 4. “The method of claim 2, wherein said modification parameter is an indicator to start another POC cycle.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this indicator can be a maximum value of the lower bits [i.e MaxPOC-1]. See Specification, Paragraph 89 and Fig. 6. As noted in prior art, there is always a particular frame count in the lower bits such as 9 or 96 that precedes incrementing of the count in the upper bits to values such as 10 or 100. This is also understood for digital values having lower and upper bits. See Takeuchi, Figs. 5-8, and Column 3, lines 50-56. See statement of motivation in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5. “The method of claim 2, wherein said reference description includes a picture order count for said decoded reference pictures.” (“each picture/slice is associated with a counter field referred to as the Picture Order Count (POC).” See Tahara, Paragraph 5.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 3, wherein said POC cycle parameter is in a slice header.” (“Several methods are provided for coding the picture order count of each slice, including coding of a delta_pic_order_cnt field in the slice header.” Tahara, Paragraph 9.)
Claim 7, “An apparatus for decoding a video bitstream,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2, and because prior art teaches: “a processor; and a data storage storing instructions executable by the processor to perform operations” (“”processor" or "controller” … may implicitly include, without limitation, digital signal processor ("DSP") hardware, read-only memory ("ROM") for storing software, random access memory ("RAM"), and non-volatile storage” Tahara, Paragraph 36.)
Regarding Claim 8: “A method for encoding a video stream comprising:
determining a picture order count (POC) of a current picture being encoded; (“The MPEG-4 AVC standard … uses Picture Order Count (POC) to indicate relative distances between coded pictures.” Tahara, Paragraph 9.)
identifying a reference picture of said current picture from reference pictures in a decoded picture buffer; (“In the MPEG-4 AVC standard, multiple reference pictures can be used for inter-prediction, with a reference picture index coded to indicate which of the multiple reference pictures is used,” where reference pictures reside in a reference picture buffer. Tahara, Paragraphs 7, 42.)
encoding the current picture using inter-frame prediction based on the reference picture, (See encoding using motion compensation 175 that performs inter-frame prediction bases on reference pictures in buffers 145 and 150 in Tahara, Paragraphs 41-42 and Fig. 1.)
wherein each of the reference pictures is associated with a picture order count (POC), and the picture order counts (POCs) of the reference pictures are ordered in a plurality of sets, each having a range [O .. MaxPOC-1] of POC values, and a particular value of MaxPOCSetlndex corresponds to a particular set of [O ... MaxPOC-1] of POC values; (See reasons for rejection in Claim 2.)
determining a reference description for reference pictures; … wherein said reference description includes a modification parameter for a long term reference picture, … wherein the modification parameter for the long term reference picture is a difference between a value of MaxPOCSetlndex of the reference picture used for encoding the current picture and a value of MaxPOCSetlndex of the current picture; and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 2.)
transmitting a bitstream including the encoded picture and the reference description for reference pictures; (“Video compression encoders and/or decoders gain much of their compression efficiency by forming a reference picture prediction of a picture to be encoded, and only encoding the difference between the current picture and the prediction. … Temporal prediction is essentially performed through the consideration of motion parameters that may be available within the bitstream” Tahara, Paragraph 3 and Fig. 1. Also note that a pertinent embodiment of “The MPEG-4 AVC standard … uses Picture Order Count (POC) to indicate relative distances between coded pictures. Several methods are provided for coding the picture order count of each slice, including coding of a delta_pic_order_cnt field in the slice header,” which represents the difference for all the bits used to represent the POC. Tahara, Paragraph 9.)
wherein said bitstream includes transform coefficients, (“FIG. 1, an exemplary video encoder which incorporates … An output of the transformer 110 … available as an output of the video encoder 100,” which embodies a bitstream. Tahara, Paragraph 41 and Fig. 1.)
generating an inter-frame prediction signal based on the reference picture used for encoding the current picture.” (“Video compression encoders and/or decoders gain much of their compression efficiency by forming a reference picture prediction of a picture to be encoded, and only encoding the difference between the current picture and the prediction. … Temporal [inter-frame] prediction is essentially performed through the consideration of motion parameters [inter-frame prediction signal] that may be available within the bitstream.” Tahara, Paragraph 3 and Fig. 1.)
Claim 9: “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream that is generated by a coding method performed by a coding apparatus, the method comprising …” is rejected because prior art taches: “These video standards support efficient transmission and storage of video data by encoding data … A computer-readable medium may comprise a computer data storage medium” See Lee, Paragraphs 3, 180 and because defining the bitstream by process making a bitstream does not limit the recording medium to a particular structure. See Claim Construction section above. Cumulatively, see rejection of the preferred method for encoding a video stream in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 8, comprising: decoding said current picture using said inter-frame prediction signal; and buffering said decoded picture in said decoded picture buffer for future prediction.” (See encoding the current picture using Motion Compensation [inter-frame prediction] 175 and then decoding of this inter-frame predicted picture in elements 125 and 130 and buffering it in Picture Reference Store 140 in Tahara, Fig. 1.)
Claim 11 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100118944 to Tanaka (“Tanaka”) relevant for teaching encoding video using POC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights