DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first Office Action in response to application no. 19/236,951 filed on June 12, 2025 in which claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
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 .
Double Patenting
2. 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent no. 11,743,469 to Hendry et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7 and 9 of the instant application and claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 of Patent no. 11,743,469 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: acquiring size information indicating a size of a current slice corresponding to at least a portion of a current picture from a bitstream; and determining the size of the current slice based on the size information, wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows, wherein the acquiring the size information is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture, wherein the height information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on whether a top left tile of the current slice belongs to a last tile row of the current picture, and wherein the width information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on whether a top left tile of the current slice belongs to a last tile column of the current picture.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 10 of Patent no. 11,743,469 calls for similar limitations. In fact, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: acquiring size information indicating a size of a current slice corresponding to at least a portion of a current picture from a bitstream; and determining the size of the current slice based on the size information, wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows, and wherein the acquiring the size information is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture, wherein the height information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to the last tile row of the current picture.
Claim 2 of the instant application is similar to claim 2 Patent no. 11,743,469.
Claim 3 of the instant application is similar to claim 3 of Patent no. 11,743,469.
Claim 4 of the instant application is similar to claim 4 of Patent no. 11.743,469.
Claim 5 of the instant application is similar to claim 5 of Patent no. 11,743,469.
Claim 6 of the instant application is similar to claim 6 of Patent no. 11,743,469.
Claim 7 is of the instant application similar to claim 7 of Patent no. 11,743,469.
Claim 8 of the instant application is similar to claim 8 of Patent no. 11,743,469.
Claim 9 of the instant application is similar to claim 9 of Patent no. 11,743,469.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 11,743,469, it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
4. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent no. 12,355,973 to Hendry et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7 and 9 of the instant application and claims 1, 5 and 6 of Patent no. 12,355,973 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: acquiring size information indicating a size of a current slice corresponding to at least a portion of a current picture from a bitstream; and determining the size of the current slice based on the size information, wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows, wherein the acquiring the size information is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture, wherein the height information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on whether a top left tile of the current slice belongs to a last tile row of the current picture, and wherein the width information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on whether a top left tile of the current slice belongs to a last tile column of the current picture.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 of Patent no. 12,355,973 calls for similar limitations. In fact, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for an image decoding apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to: acquire size information indicating a size of a current slice corresponding to at least a portion of a current picture from a bitstream, determine the size of the current slice based on the size information, wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows, wherein the acquiring the size information is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture, wherein the height information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to the last tile row of the current picture, and wherein the current slice is a rectangular slice.
Claim 2 of the instant application is similar to claim 2 Patent no. 12,355,973.
Claim 3 of the instant application is similar to claim 3 of Patent no. 12,355,973.
Claim 4 of the instant application is similar to claim 4 of Patent no. 12,355,973.
Claim 7 of the instant application is similar to claim 5 of Patent no. 12,355,973.
Claim 9 of the instant application is similar to claim 6 of Patent no. 12,355,973.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 12,355,973. it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(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.
7. Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being (a)(2) anticipated by Esenlik et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0007270).
Regarding claim 1, Esenlik discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (See Esenlik’s Abstract, Fig. 1A, item 14 with decoder 30), the image decoding method comprising: acquiring size information indicating a size of a current slice corresponding to at least a portion of a current picture from a bitstream (See Esenlik [0007]-[0008]); and determining the size of the current slice based on the size information (See Esenlik [0011]), wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows (See Esenlik [0011], [0308]), wherein the acquiring the size information is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0298], [0319]-[0321]), wherein the height information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on whether a top left tile of the current slice belongs to a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0346]-[0347]), and wherein the width information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream based on whether a top left tile of the current slice belongs to a last tile column of the current picture (See Esenlik [0065]-[0066], [0087]).
As per claim 7, Esenlik discloses an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus (See Esenlik’s Abstract, [0003]), the image encoding method comprising: determining a current slice corresponding to at least one a portion of a current picture (See Esenlik [0007]), and generating a bitstream including size information of the current slice (See Esenlik [0007]-[0008]), wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows (See Esenlik [0011], [0308]), wherein the generating the bitstream is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0298], [0319]-[0321]), wherein the height information of the current slice is not encoded in the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0346]-[0347]), and wherein the width information of the current slice is not encoded in the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to a last tile column of the current picture (See Esenlik [0065]-[0066], [0087]).
As per claim 9, Esenlik discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Esenlik [0133] and [0136]), the method comprising: generating a bitstream based on an image encoding method, transmitting the bitstream (See Esenlik [0133] and [0136]), wherein the image encoding method comprising determining a current slice corresponding to at least one a portion of a current picture (See Esenlik [0007]), and generating a bitstream including size information of the current slice (See Esenlik [0007]-[0008]), wherein the size information includes width information indicating a width of the current slice in units of tile columns and height information indicating a height of the current slice in units of tile rows (See Esenlik [0011], [0308]), wherein the generating the bitstream is performed based on whether the current slice belongs to a last tile column or a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0298], [0319]-[0321]), wherein the height information of the current slice is not encoded in the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0346]-[0347]), and wherein the width information of the current slice is not encoded in the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to a last tile column of the current picture (See Esenlik [0065]-[0066], [0087]).
As per claim 2, Esenlik further discloses wherein the height information of the current slice is acquired from the bitstream based on a top left tile of the current slice not belonging to a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0256]-[258] and [0346]-[0347]).
As per claims 5 and 8, Esenlik further discloses wherein the current slice is a rectangular slice. (See Esenlik [0272]-[0273]).
As per claim 3, Esenlik further discloses wherein the height information of the current slice is not acquired from the bitstream and is determined to be a predetermined value based on a top left tile of the current slice belonging to a last tile row of the current picture (See Esenlik [0034], [0346]-[0347], [0353]).
As per claim 4, Esenlik further discloses wherein the predetermined value indicates one tile row (See Esenlik [0011], [0015]).
8. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form that would overcome the obvious-type double patenting, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights