CTNF 19/265,155 CTNF 88395 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 (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. 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 – 07-12-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 1 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yin et al. as published on US 20110091120 A1 hereinafter “Yin” . Regarding claim 1. Yin disclose a method for processing visual media data including texture data and displacement data ( 0019-0083 ), comprising: coding the texture data and the displacement data in a single bitstream or a single video during a conversion between the single video and the single bitstream ( 0044-0045; Figure 2; “[0044] … the information used is a ‘displacement vector’ which describes the position of the new patch B.sub.k within the input sample texture I.sub.in. The displacement vector is defined as dv, as shown in FIG. 2. In the embodiment of FIG. 2, dv is the distance from the upper-left point of B.sub.k to that of I.sub.in. This ‘displacement vector’, in accordance with the present principles of the invention, differs from motion vectors used in motion compensation in current video compression standards and recommendations in that the reference picture is the input texture I.sub.in the displacement vector is a spatial displacement, unlike a conventional ‘motion vector’ which, in general, refers to temporal displacement. Accordingly, the spatial displacement vector described herein in accordance with the present principles is also interchangeably referred to herein as ‘input texture spatial displacement vector’. At the encoder, both the input sample texture and information representing a spatial displacement vector dv are coded . At the decoder, the new patch is generated by directly using the ‘displacement vector’.”, “[0045] The input sample texture and the information representing the spatial displacement vector can be coded in any method, either lossy or lossless. … the input sample texture is coded lossily, using vector quantization and entropy coding, and code the displacement vector in a lossless manner, using Differential Pulse Code Modulation (DPCM) and entropy coding. Advantageously, embodiments of the present principles can be applied to any method based on patch-based sampling including, but not limited to, multi-resolution patch-based sampling texture synthesis where, in each resolution, the displacement vectors can be generated.” ); and performing the conversion based on coding methods of the texture data and the displacement data ( 0046 and 0054; Figure 3; “[0046] Turning to FIG. 3, a video encoder capable of performing video encoding in accordance with the MPEG-4 AVC standard is indicated generally by the reference numeral 300 .”, “[0054] Inputs of the frame ordering buffer 310 and the encoder controller 305 are available as input of the encoder 300, for receiving an input picture 301. Moreover, an input of the Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) inserter 330 is available as an input of the encoder 300, for receiving metadata. An output of the output buffer 335 is available as an output of the encoder 300, for outputting a bitstream .” ). Regarding claim 16. Yin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into a bitstream ( 0046-0054; Figure 3 ). Regarding claim 17. Yin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data from a bitstream ( 0055-0066; Figure 4 ). Regarding claim 18. Apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Regarding claim 19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps. To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM. Therefore, the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Yin which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (0023) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 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 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. 07-20-02-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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin . Regarding claims 3-4. Yin disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising converting the displacement data to N-bit ( 0002 ), but failed to explicitly disclose the method further comprising wherein the N-bit is a bitdepth of the texture data, and where N is an integer, wherein N is 10. It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the features recited above in order to improve the coding efficiency that would yield predictive result for encoding and decoding of visual media data in various selection of devices. Regarding claims 5-9. Claims 5-9 have been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims 3-4 above . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2 and 10-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi et al. as published on US 20210375005 A1 hereinafter “Choi” . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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. /ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/265,155 Page 2 Art Unit: 2482
Prosecution Insights