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.
Claims 21-23 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 21 is 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.
The claim appears to be missing a wherein clause to link the preamble to the limitations. The claim reads: “21. A video signal decoding device comprising a processor, obtain a reference line index indicating a reference line used for intra prediction of a current block,” and it appears this should be: “21. A video signal decoding device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a reference line index indicating a reference line used for intra prediction of a current block,” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-23 add nothing to improve the clarity of claim 21 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 27 is 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 27: A method for obtaining a bitstream, the method comprising: obtaining … is directed to a method of obtaining a bitstream, followed by a recitation that the bitstream obtained includes information related to a mode for decoding. In other words, the obtaining method is merely obtaining the bitstream. The bitstream being obtained has no disclosed or claim-defined structure that differentiates the claimed data stream from any other obtained data stream. Applicant is advised to change the claim limitations to active verbs that describe a method of decoding this bitstream.
According to MPEP 2173.02(II), claim 27 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 obtained in claim 27 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 27? The claimed (and disclosed) data stream has no particular structure, arrangement, indicia or anything else that would distinguish the obtained data stream from any other bitstream. In other words, once a decoding method completes operations on the obtained data stream there is nothing about the data stream to distinguish it from another data stream other than specific video data content. The metes and bounds of claim 27 are therefore not defined by the decoding method but instead by the obtaining of the data stream which is a wholly unclear and indefinite entity in and of itself.
Claim 27 is recommended to be re-written as a method claim to carry out the steps of decoding a bitstream. Otherwise, the obtaining of any bitstream can be used to reject the claimed method for obtaining a bitstream.
Regarding claims 28-29: the claims are further claims for obtaining a bitstream and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 27.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26 and 30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art LIU et al., (US 2018/0332284) which teaches a device to determine an intra-prediction mode subset, where the intra-prediction mode subset includes intra-prediction modes that correlate to reference lines for a current image block, and excludes intra-prediction modes that correlate to a primary reference line for the current image block. A processer decodes intra-prediction mode by an alternative intra-prediction mode index when the intra-prediction mode is included in the intra-prediction mode subset; and LEE, (US 2019/0238835) which teaches a method for decoding a video by deriving reference sample lines for a current block, selecting a reference sample line, determining whether to apply an intra filter to a reference sample included in the selected reference sample line, selectively applying the intra filter to the reference sample according to the determination, and performing intra prediction for the current block using the reference sample. These references, either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious especially the underlined limitations of claim 24 (and the similar method limitations of claim 30) including [a] video signal encoding device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a bitstream to be decoded by a decoder using a decoding method, the decoding method comprising: obtaining a reference line index indicating a reference line used for intra prediction of a current block; determining an intra prediction mode for the current block based on the reference line index; and reconstructing the current block based on the intra prediction mode, wherein when the reference line index indicates a first reference line including reference samples adjacent to a boundary of the current block, the intra prediction mode is included in a first intra prediction mode set, wherein when the reference line index indicates a second reference line including reference samples not adjacent to a boundary of the current block, the intra prediction mode is included in a second intra prediction mode set, wherein the second intra prediction mode set includes a part of the first intra prediction mode set, wherein the first intra prediction mode set includes a plurality of angular modes, a planar mode, and a DC mode, and wherein the second intra prediction mode set does not include the planar mode.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 on 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