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 .
Reissue Applications
This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 10,602,155 (“the ‘155 patent”). By preliminary amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 14, and 15, canceled claims 2-13, and introduced new claims 16-18. Claims 1 and 14-18 are pending. This application is a continuation of reissue application 18/587,146, which is abandoned.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,602,155 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.173 – Insufficient Explanation of Support
This application is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c), which requires “an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” Various features that are recited in the amended claims do not find support in the written description in the passages referred to by the applicant. Accordingly, the explanation of support for these features is not sufficient. See §112(a) rejection below.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.175 – Defective Declaration: Improper Error Statement
The declaration is defective because it fails to accurately describe the error that is relied upon to support this reissue application. The declaration filed 05/29/2025 states that the claims of the ‘155 patent recited “more than Applicant had a right to claim.” Therefore the error that the applicant relies upon to file this reissue application is that the patent claims were too broad, and have been narrowed. This is not accurate. The claims of this reissue application, while including many new limitations, are broader than the claims of the patent because they cover an invention that was not within the scope of the claims of the ‘155 patent. See MPEP 1412.03 and the §251 rejection below.
Claim Interpretation – Nonfunctional Language
Claim 15 contains nonfunctional language that is not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 Ill. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 15 is drawn to a computer-readable medium storing a bitstream (which is video), and the body of the claim recites steps that were used to encode, or generate, the video. The data stored in the medium is not a form of programming that causes the recited encoding steps to be performed by an intended computer. Therefore no functional relationship exists between the video data and a computer with which it is associated. Id.
In addition, there is no functional or structural relationship between the video and the claimed computer-readable medium. Data other than executable code that is stored in a memory may be granted patentable weight when the data has a “functional relationship with the memory.” See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Unlike in Lowry, the instant specification does not show that the video provides any functional or structural improvement to the memory (the computer readable storage medium) that holds it. This distinguishes the claim the facts presented in Lowry, and therefore a functional relationship does not exist between the video and the claimed computer- readable medium.
Lacking any functional relationship, the video is treated as nonfunctional descriptive material because the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the video. MPEP 2111.05 Ill. Therefore, the video and the claim elements describing how the video was encoded are not given patentable weight. “[I]f the only distinction between a prior art storage medium and a claimed storage medium is the information stored thereon — rather than a different ‘functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate’ — then the claimed storage medium (with associated information) is unpatentably obvious over the prior art because the information lacks ‘patentable weight.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007), citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir.1983).
Claim 15 may alternatively be considered to be drawn to a product-by-process. A product-by- process claim “defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made.” MPEP 2173.05(p). Because claim 15 defines a product (the computer-readable medium storing video data) by the process steps (the encoding method) used to generate the data, product-by-process interpretation of the claim is appropriate. “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." MPEP 2113 I, quoting In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, “the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims.” Id. It is not shown in the written description that the encoding steps impart a novel or nonobvious physical structure to the computer-readable medium. Accordingly, the product is rendered obvious by a prior art disclosure of a memory holding any media content. Such a prior art disclosure would describe a memory whose structure, while not identical, is sufficiently “similar to” the claimed memory to render the claim obvious. See MPEP 2113 Il.
To overcome this issue, it is recommended that the claim be amended to recite that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium contain “executable program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform” the recited encoding method. If amended in this manner, the remaining elements of claim 15 would have a functional relationship with an intended computer and would be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 Il.
Claim Interpretation – Contingent Language
Claim 18 includes contingent language that does not limit the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. A method claim’s BRI includes only steps that must be performed, and does not include steps that are only performed when a particular condition is met. MPEP 2111.04 II. Claim 18 recites a step that is performed “if the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type to be determined independently from each other.” Because this is not required to occur, the step that is performed under this condition is not included in the BRI of the claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251
Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for being based upon a defective declaration, as described above.
Claims 1 and 14-18 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being broadened in a reissue application filed outside the two year statutory period. The independent claims have been amended to cover an invention that is not included in the scope of the claims of the ‘155 patent. A claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects.
The claims of the ‘155 patent are drawn to decoding and encoding an image block using intra-frame prediction. Amended claims 1, 14, and 15 of this application change the scope of the claims to cover inter-frame prediction. This new invention was not included in the scope of the claims of the patent.
A claim in the reissue application which includes subject matter not covered by the patent claims enlarges the scope of the patent claims. For example, if any amended or newly added claim in the reissue contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the patent, then that reissue claim would be broader than the patent claims. Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 1037 n.2, 4 USPQ2d 1450, 1453 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Ruth, 278 F.2d 729, 730, 126 USPQ 155, 156 (CCPA 1960); In re Rogoff, 261 F.2d 601, 603, 120 USPQ 185, 186 (CCPA 1958). A claim which covers something that the original claims do not is a broadened claim. A claim would be considered a broadening claim if the patent owner would be able to sue any party for infringement who previously could not have been sued for infringement.
MPEP 1412.03 I. The claims of this application relate to an entirely different form of image prediction than the claims of the patent, thus cover “something that the original claims do not.” And while these claims have been amended to include various limitations that are not found in the patent claims, the claims cover a “product or process which would not have infringed the original patent” even though they have been narrowed in other aspects. Accordingly, the claims have been broadened. And because no intent to broaden was received within two years of the grant of the ‘155 patent (in this application or in parent reissue application 18/587,146), the claims are not in compliance with 35 USC §251. See MPEP 1412.03 IV.
Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
The recapture analysis involves a three-step test:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
MPEP 1412.02 II.
Step (1): As described above, the claims are broader in scope than the patent claims. Therefore analysis continues to step (2).
Step (2): The following limitations that were found in the claims of the patent have been removed from the claims of this reissue application:
SGL 1: generating a prediction pixel “based on the intra prediction mode of the current block”.
SGL 2: performing interpolation “when the intra prediction mode of the current block is a directional mode.”
SGL 3: “wherein the plurality of continuous reference pixels are variably determined based on a position indicated by the direction of the intra prediction mode of the current block.”
These limitations were surrendered during prosecution of US Application 14/787,604 (“the ‘604 application”), from which the ‘155 patent issued. In a 09/04/2019 amendment, claim 1 of the ‘604 application was amended to include SGL 1-3. This amendment was made in direct reply to prior art rejections of the previous Office action. In addition, the applicant highlighted these limitations as differentiating over the prior art. See Remarks filed in the ‘604 application on 09/04/2019 at 7-8. Therefore these limitations were surrendered. See MPEP 1412.02 II B. Analysis continues to step (3) of the recapture analysis.
Step (3): While the reissue application claims have been amended to include various limitations not found in the patent claims, these narrowing features are unrelated to the surrendered subject matter that is described above. As such, there has been no material narrowing “relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured.” MPEP 1412.02 II C. And because the claims improperly omit surrendered subject matter, they violate the recapture rule of §251.
Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is described in the §112(a) rejections below.
Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for violating the original patent requirement. Claims of a reissue application “must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent… To satisfy the original patent requirement where a new invention is sought by reissue, ‘… the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.’" MPEP 1412.01 I. As described above and in the §112(a) rejection below, the invention that is recited in amended claims 1 and 14-18 is not disclosed in the written description as a separate invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite:
independently from other blocks, selecting, from a plurality of interpolation filter types, a vertical interpolation filter type for vertical interpolation of a current block based on vertical interpolation filter type information that is parsed from a bitstream, and selecting, from the plurality of interpolation filter types, an horizontal interpolation filter type for horizontal interpolation of the current block based on horizontal interpolation filter type information that is parsed from the bitstream;
determining a motion vector of the current block;
determining, based on the selected vertical interpolation filter type, the selected horizontal interpolation filter type and a reference position by the motion vector of the current block, a vertical interpolation filter and a horizontal interpolation filter for generating of a prediction pixel; and
generating a prediction pixel in the current block by applying the vertical interpolation filter and the horizontal interpolation filter to a reference sample in a reference block of the current block,
wherein the prediction pixel in the current block is generated by performing interpolation filter with N reference pixels including a plurality of continuous reference pixels,
wherein the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type are determined in unit of a block in a current picture including the current block, and
wherein a number of taps of the vertical interpolation filter of the current block can be determined from a number of taps of the horizontal interpolation filter of the current block according to the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type.
Claims 14 and 15 include similar language. The limitations in italics fail to find support in the written description.
The ‘155 patent disclosure is almost entirely directed to interpolation that is used when performing intra-frame prediction. However, claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended to recite a form of interpolation in inter-frame prediction that the ‘155 patent does not support. The specification briefly describes inter-frame prediction, and discloses the use of an interpolation filter when performing inter-frame prediction with decimal pixel precision. See ‘155 patent at 13:37-14:35. The entirety of the disclosure relating to an interpolation filter that is used in inter-frame prediction is reproduced below:
The motion compensating unit 130 decides a filter feature of an adaptive interpolation filter required for the motion compensation of decimal precision. The filter feature may include, for example, information indicting [sic] a filter type the adaptive interpolation filter and information indicating the size of the adaptive interpolation filter.
The size of the filter is, for example, a tap number which is the number of the filter coefficients of the adaptive interpolation filter.
In detail, the motion compensating unit 130 as the adaptive interpolation filter may decide any one of separation type and non-separation type adaptive filters. Then, the decided tap number of the adaptive interpolation filter and a value of each filter coefficient are decided. The value of the filter coefficient may be decided differently for each relative position of the decimal pixel to the integer pixel. Further, the motion compensating unit 130 may use multiple non-adaptive interpolation filters in which the filter coefficient is fixed.
The motion compensation unit 130 may configure the feature of the interpolation filter by the predetermined processing unit. For example, the feature may be configured by the decimal pixel unit, the coding basic unit (coding unit), the slice unit, the picture unit, or the sequence unit. Further, one feature may be configured with respect to one video datum.
Id. at 13:55-14:13.
There is no indication that the interpolation filters that are described throughout the remainder of the written description, which are described as being specific to intra-frame prediction, are used in the inter-frame embodiment that the amended claims are drawn to. The italicized limitations that are quoted above all relate to this intra-frame interpolation, and there is nothing in the specification that suggests that these steps are also performed in inter-frame prediction. Nor is it described how the intra-frame interpolation filters might be adapted to work in subpixel inter-frame encoding.
For example, it is not disclosed that horizontal and vertical filter types for fractional-position inter prediction are individually selected and determined based on bitstream information; that a filter type is determined based on a reference position of a motion vector (as opposed to a reference position in an intra directional mode); that, for a fractional position inter frame prediction filter, the number of taps of the vertical filter is determined independently from the number of horizontal taps, etc.
In the filing of this reissue application, the applicant has pointed to various passages of the ‘155 patent as providing support for the features of the amended claims. See Remarks at 9-10. The passages referred to by the applicant include the above-quoted passages that describe the inter-frame prediction, as well as various portions of the specification that describe a separate intra-frame prediction embodiment. While Figure 14, for example, shows determining features of vertical and horizontal interpolation filters, this figure describes intra prediction. See e.g. ‘155 patent at 3:22-25 and 11:38-12:19. The applicant has not shown that the POSITA would conclude that the inter prediction embodiment incorporates the intra prediction features that are recited in the italicized claim limitations quoted above. Therefore the invention that is recited in these claims combines embodiments that is not supported by the ‘155 patent.
Claim 18 additionally recites that it is determined whether the vertical and horizontal filters are determined independently from each other. Similar to the description given above, the ‘155 patent does not support this feature, which is only described as being used in intra-frame interpolation. See ‘155 patent at 11:58-62.
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 1 and 14-18 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.
The preamble of claim 1 describes a method for decoding “using an intra prediction.” However, the remaining limitations in the claim describe motion vector-based inter-frame decoding. Therefore it is not clear whether the claim is intended to cover intra or inter-frame prediction. Claims 16-18 depend from claim 1 and inherit this deficiency.
Claims 1 and 15 recite that a number of taps of the vertical interpolation filter of the current block “can be determined” from a number of taps of the horizontal interpolation filter. It is not clear from this language if the claim requires that determining the number of taps of the vertical filter is actually performed, or if it merely implies that it is possible to perform this step (in which case the language would not be given patentable weight – see MPEP 2111.04: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.”).
In addition, claim 1 recites that “number of taps of the vertical interpolation filter of the current block can be determined from a number of taps of the horizontal interpolation filter.” In describing support for this limitation, the applicant stated that the claim recited that the number of vertical taps can be determined differently from the number of horizontal taps. See Remarks at 10. It is not clear if this claim requires that the number of vertical taps is determined from (i.e., derived from) the number of horizontal taps, as the claim appears to recite, or if the two numbers of taps are determined differently, as the applicant appears to have intended the claim to recite.
Claim 14 concludes with the following limitation: “wherein a number of taps of the vertical interpolation filter of the current block.” This limitation appears to be incomplete and its scope cannot be determined.
As described above, claim 15 recites method steps that are used to generate the bitstream that is stored in the claimed computer readable medium. It is not clear if the claim requires these steps to actually be performed. Therefore the scope of claim 15 is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye, US 20090257502.
Claim 1: Ye discloses a method for decoding a bitstream using an intra prediction [examiner’s note: The claim will be examined under the assumption that it recites a method for decoding using inter prediction, not intra prediction. See §112(b) rejection above.], the method comprising:
independently from other blocks, selecting, from a plurality of interpolation filter types, a vertical interpolation filter type for vertical interpolation of a current block based on vertical interpolation filter type information that is parsed from a bitstream, and selecting, from the plurality of interpolation filter types, an horizontal interpolation filter type for horizontal interpolation of the current block based on horizontal interpolation filter type information that is parsed from the bitstream (The type of interpolation filter (e.g., fixed, adaptive, etc.) that is used in fractional position inter-frame decoding is decoded from the bitstream. Abstract and ¶¶ 8 and 176-178. Interpolation filter types and coefficients (which include both horizontal and vertical filters: see ¶85) are selected independently based on information that is decoded from the bitstream. ¶¶ 150, 168 and 171. Because the filter type is signaled for each independently decodable unit (see ¶56), this information will be received independently from at least blocks of other coded units);
determining a motion vector of the current block (¶169);
determining, based on the selected vertical interpolation filter type, the selected horizontal interpolation filter type and a reference position by the motion vector of the current block, a vertical interpolation filter and a horizontal interpolation filter for generating of a prediction pixel (The horizontal and vertical filters that are used to generate the pixel are determined based on the decoded filter information. ¶169. See also ¶¶85-92 for a description of the horizontal and vertical filtering that this entails. Filter type is further determined based on whether the position referred to by the MV is at a half- or quarter-pixel location); and
generating a prediction pixel in the current block by applying the vertical interpolation filter and the horizontal interpolation filter to a reference sample in a reference block of the current block (The prediction pixels are computed based on the interpolation. ¶169 and Fig. 18: 183),
wherein the prediction pixel in the current block is generated by performing interpolation filter with N reference pixels including a plurality of continuous reference pixels (See ¶¶85-92 and Fig. 3),
wherein the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type are determined in unit of a block in a current picture including the current block (The motion compensation filtering is performed using the same interpolation filtering for the entire block. ¶114. The information defining the filter is received multiple times per coded unit. ¶173-174. The POSITA would understand this to define filters for each block), and
wherein a number of taps of the vertical interpolation filter of the current block can be determined (differently) [examiner’s addition. See §112(b) rejection above] from a number of taps of the horizontal interpolation filter of the current block according to the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type (Vertical and horizontal filtering use a different number of taps based on whether the fractional position is at integer, half, or quarter pixel location. ¶¶ 80 and 84-87. This number of taps is further determined based on the filter types. ¶¶ 88, 112.).
Claim 14: see rejection of claim 1. Ye further discloses the encoding method corresponding to the decoding method recited in claim 1, which is described in Fig. 17 and its description. In addition, the person of skill in this art would recognize that these operations are the inverse of each other, and Ye’s disclosure of a decoding method teaches the claimed encoding method.
Claim 15: see rejection of claims 1 and 14. While the content of the bitstream that is stored in the medium is not given patentable weight (see Claim Construction heading above), Ye discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream that is generated by the encoding method of claim 14. See Ye Fig. 1 and 2 and their description.
Claim 16: Ye discloses that a number of taps of the interpolation filter of the current block is determined according to the interpolation filter type (Vertical and horizontal filtering use a different number of taps based on whether the fractional position is at integer, half, or quarter pixel location. ¶¶ 80 and 84-87. This number of taps is further determined based on the filter types. ¶¶ 88, 112.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye.
Claim 17 Ye fails to disclose that each of the number of taps of the vertical interpolation filter and the number of taps of the horizontal interpolation filter is independently determined to be one of 2, 4,6, and 8.
However, official notice is taken that this was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore it would have bene obvious to the POSITA to modify Ye to include this, the rationale being to provide increased flexibility in the rate-distortion-complexity tradeoff involved in fractional interpolation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Bao, US 20080089417.
Claim 18 Ye fails to disclose determining, in the current picture including the current block, whether the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type are determined independently from each other, wherein, if the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type to be determined independently from each other, the vertical interpolation filter type of the current block and the horizontal interpolation filter type of the current block are determined independently from each other.
However, Bao discloses determining, in the current picture including the current block, whether the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type are determined independently from each other, wherein, if the vertical interpolation filter type and the horizontal interpolation filter type to be determined independently from each other, the vertical interpolation filter type of the current block and the horizontal interpolation filter type of the current block are determined independently from each other (It is determined to apply same or different horizontal and vertical interpolation filters based on a filter type. Abstract, ¶¶ 31 and 39).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye with the teachings of Bao, the rationale being to improve image coding efficiency and quality. See Bao ¶41.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992