DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/05/2025. Claims 1-15 have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for provisional application No. 63/,028,586 filed on 05/22/2020.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. patent Application No. 17/922,718. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the claims cover substantially the same subject matter. The table below shows only a sample of how each of these claims is anticipated by claims such as claim 1 of U.S. patent application No. 17/922,718.
Instant Application
U.S. patent application No. 17/922,718
Claim 1: An image decoding apparatus, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: decode slices included in a current picture; derive a picture output flag for the current picture, based on all of the slices included in the current picture having been decoded; and determine output for the current picture based on the picture output flag, wherein the picture output flag has a value related to whether the current picture is output, wherein based on a value of the picture output flag being 0, the current picture is marked as “not needed for output”, wherein based on the value of the picture output flag being 1, the current picture is marked as “needed for output”, and wherein based on a first condition that a value of a syntax element related to video parameter set (VPS) ID is greater than 0 and a current layer is not an output layer, the value of the picture output flag is derived as 0.
Claim 1: An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: decoding slices included in a current picture; deriving a picture output flag for the current picture, based on all of the slices included in the current picture having been decoded; and determining output for the current picture based on the picture output flag, wherein the picture output flag has a value related to whether the current picture is output, wherein based on a value of the picture output flag being 0, the current picture is marked as “not needed for output”, wherein based on the value of the picture output flag being 1, the current picture is marked as “needed for output”, and wherein based on a first condition that a value of a syntax element related to video parameter set (VPS) ID is greater than 0 and a current layer is not an output layer, the value of the picture output flag is derived as 0.
Examiner’s note:
II. FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINTED MATTER AND ASSOCIATED SUBSTRATE MUST BE NEW AND NONOBVIOUS
Once a functional relationship between the product and associated printed matter is found, the investigation shifts to the determination of whether the relationship is new and nonobvious. For example, a claim to a color-coded indicia on a container in which the color indicates the expiration date of the container may give rise to a functional relationship. The claim may, however, be anticipated by prior art that reads on the claimed invention, or by a combination of prior art that teaches the claimed invention.
III. MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA
When determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
A claim directed to a computer readable medium storing instructions or executable code that recites an abstract idea must be evaluated for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.
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) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Comer (US 2005/0185937).
Regarding claim 15, Comer discloses an apparatus for transmitting data for image information comprising: at least one processor configured to generate a bitstream for the image information, wherein the bitstream is generated based on decoding slices included in a current picture, deriving a picture output flag for the current picture, based on all of the slices included in the current picture having been decoded, determining output for the current picture based on the picture output flag and encoding the image information for the current picture, a transmitter configured to transmit the data including the bitstream, wherein the picture output flag has a value related to whether the current picture is output, wherein based on a value of the picture output flag being 0, the current picture is marked as “not needed for output”, wherein based on the value of the picture output flag being 1, the current picture is marked as “needed for output”, and wherein based on a first condition that a value of a syntax element related to video parameter set (VPS) ID is greater than 0 and a current layer is not an output layer, the value of the picture output flag is derived as 0 ( Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights