CTNF 19/256,945 CTNF 89528 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0227222) (hereinafter Lee) . In regard to claim 19 , claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method). Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words , the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself . Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 19 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, claim 19 is anticipated by Lee, as Lee discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Lee discloses: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts [¶0024; computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video coding method] comprising: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela US 20200021824 . Regarding claim 1, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: A method for processing video or image data [77,229,243,273], comprising: determining to arrange displacement vectors and an attribute map of three-dimensional (3D) visual media data into a single picture for processing by a two-dimensional (2D) video codec (i.e. patches made from volumetric images and texture and depth patches.) [105-110,246-247,269-272,388-391; fig. 4]; and performing a conversion between visual media data and a bitstream based on the displacement vectors and the attribute map (i.e. region packing info can be encoded as metadata in the bitstream) [85,105-110,206-210, 246-247,269-272,388-391]. Hannuksela do/does not explicitly disclose(s) that the conversion is encoding. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hannuksela that encoding can be considered a conversion from media data to a bitstream. It would be advantageous because encoding requires certain data elements to be able to compress the video data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hannuksela to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 1, further comprising determining to arrange the displacement vectors and the attribute map in different parts of the single picture, and indicating location information or size information for each of the different parts in the bitstream (i.e. patches made from volumetric images and texture and depth patches. These form an image and relevant geometric data is included) [110,199,246-247,269-272; fig. 4]. Regarding claim 3, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 2, further comprising indicating the location information or the size information in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a picture header, or a slice header of the bitstream (i.e. syntax may indicate location information) [148-151,382-387]. Regarding claim 4, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 2, further comprising deriving the location information or the size information from information in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a picture header, or a slice header of the bitstream (i.e. picture dimension may be derived) [148-151,382-387,396]. Regarding claim 5, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 1, further comprising aligning the displacement vectors and the attribute map to a single bitdepth prior to determining to arrange the displacement vectors and the attribute map into the single picture (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to match. This can be pre-defined) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537]. Regarding claim 6, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 5, further comprising aligning a bitdepth of the displacement vectors to the attribute map so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single bitdepth (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to align. Bit depth can be aligned for the entire bitstream) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537]. Regarding claim 7, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 5, further comprising aligning a bitdepth of the attribute map to the displacement vectors so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single bitdepth (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to align. Bit depth can be aligned for the entire bitstream) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537]. Regarding claim 8, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 5, further comprising aligning a first portion of data with a bitdepth lower than the single bitdepth to a second portion of data with a bitdepth higher than the single bitdepth so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single bitdepth (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to align. Bit depth can be aligned for the entire bitstream) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537]. Regarding claim 9, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 1, further comprising aligning the displacement vectors and the attribute map to a single color format prior to determining to arrange the displacement vectors and the attribute map into the single picture (i.e. single color format used in the pictures.) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364]. Regarding claim 10, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 9, further comprising aligning a color format of the displacement vectors to the attribute map so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single color format (i.e. single color format used in the pictures.) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364]. Regarding claim 11, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 9, further comprising aligning a color format of the attribute map to the displacement vectors so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single color format (i.e. single color format used in the pictures.) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364]. Regarding claim 12, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 9, further comprising aligning a portion of data with a less color format information to a portion of data with more color format information so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single color format (i.e. single color format used in the pictures. Color format can be converted to conform to a single color format) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364,367]. Regarding claim 13, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream (i.e. encoder can compress bitstream) [71,94]. Regarding claim 14, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data from the bitstream (i.e. decoder can uncompress bitstream) [71,102; fig. 8,9]. Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below. Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows: processor and memory [13] Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2,5,9. Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2,5,9. Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2,5,9. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain. 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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. /Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 2 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 3 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 4 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 5 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 6 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 7 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 8 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 9 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 10 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/256,945 Page 11 Art Unit: 2426
Prosecution Insights