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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/10/2026 has been entered.
Reissue Applications
This is an application to reissue US Patent No. 11,743,463 (“the ‘463 patent”). In an amendment that was entered as part of the 09/03/2026 RCE, the applicant has amended claims 1, 4, and 5, and canceled previous claim 13. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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. 11,743,463 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.
Applicant’s Response
Interpretation of Claim 6
The final Office action (“FOA”) described how claim 6 included contingent language that did not limit the scope of the claim. See FOA at 4. Amended claim 6 no longer includes contingent language. The examiner agrees with the applicant’s discussion of the proper interpretation of this language. See Remarks at 13.
Recapture Rejection Under § 251
The claims were previously rejected for violating the recapture rule of § 251. See FOA at 5-7. Applicant has reintroduced SGL 1 into the claims. In addition, the applicant’s argument regarding SGL 2 (see Remarks at 14-15) is persuasive. This rejection under § 251 is withdrawn.
Rejections under § 103
The applicant argues that the combination of Hannuksela and Roseware that was described in the FOA does not teach or suggest generating both IBC and non-IBC predictions for a block of the first zone and selecting the optimal mode among the two, while only encoding blocks of the second zone according to a non-IBC encoding method. Remarks at 16-19. These arguments are not persuasive.
Hannuksela discloses that blocks of the second zone are coded “by using a prediction not of the Intra Block Copy type” as claim 1 now requires. Hannuksela discloses that IBC is used to code a block of the second constituent frame (i.e., the first zone) using a block from the first constituent frame (the second zone). Hannuksela ¶¶ 233-234. When using IBC, “only previously decoded samples can be referred in the prediction process.” Id. ¶ 851. Because the second constituent frame’s block is IBC-predicted using a block from the first constituent frame that is decoded, the block from the first constituent frame was previously encoded. IBC is unavailable for encoding the first constituent frame. See id. ¶¶ 233-234. Therefore the block of the first constituent frame is not encoded using IBC, it is encoded “by using a prediction not of the Intra Block Copy type” as the claim requires.
See also Fig. 4 and its description at ¶¶ 256-258, which describes a typical video encoder2. This shows that the reference picture information that is used to code future blocks is encoded (at block 302) before being subsequently decoded (at block 304) and stored in reference frame memory 318. Id. ¶ 258. These blocks were encoded according to a prediction mode that is selected by mode selector 310: either inter- or intra-frame prediction is selected. Id. ¶¶ 256-257. And because IBC is unavailable for blocks of the first constituent frame, the information in this reference frame memory that is used to code the second constituent frame was coded using inter- or intra-frame prediction, which are both non-IBC prediction methods.
Therefore Hannuksela teaches all elements of claim 1 except that for blocks of its second constituent frame (which corresponds to the claimed first zone), both an IBC and a non-IBC prediction is calculated, and the optimal mode is selected and is signaled. The FOA relied on Rosewarne to address these limitations. See below and the FOA at 9-10. A Hannuksela-Rosewarne combination will predict a block of the second constituent frame using both IBC and non-IBC, then select the better among the two. See FOA at 9-10. The selected mode is signaled to the decoder in the bitstream. See id. When Hannuksela is modified to perform this selection, it will still encode the blocks of the first constituent frame using a non-IBC prediction method, as described above.
The Hannuksela-Rosewarne combination therefore renders obvious the invention that is recited in the amended independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela, US 20190082184 in view of Rosewarne, US 20160227244.
Claim 1: Hannuksela discloses a coding method comprising:
coding a current image split up into blocks (¶83), said current image containing at least two distinct first and second zones (note: in light of the specification, “at least two distinct first and second zones” is understood to require one first zone and one second zone. See the ‘463 patent Fig. 3B, as well as the 07/18/2025 Declaration p. 2) of blocks which do not overlap and are defined previously to the coding of any block of said current image (Frame packing of stereoscopic images places non-overlapping left- and right-eye images into a single frame. ¶197. This is equivalent to the claimed first and second “zones” when understood in light of the specification. See e.g. ‘463 patent at 7:38-55. The frame-packed image defines the zones prior to coding. ¶198.), wherein the first zone is located to the right of the second zone (A first zone, constituent frame #2, is to the right of a second zone, constituent frame #1. See Fig. 6a.), and wherein said coding comprises the following acts performed by a coding device:
coding a block of said first zone, by:
predicting the block of said first zone by using a prediction of the Intra Block Copy type using a block of the second zone that has been previously coded and then decoded (Using intra block copy (IBC), a block of the first zone (that is, the second constituent frame) is predicted based on a block of a second zone (that is, the first constituent frame). ¶234. The block of the second zone that is used for IBC is previously coded and subsequently decoded, as only previously decoded samples are available for IBC prediction. ¶85. See also Fig. 4), and
coding an item of information which indicates if a mode of prediction Intra Block Copy has been used or not to predict the block of said first zone (The encoder indicates (thus codes an item of information: see Fig. 4: 330) availability of IBC for blocks of the first zone. ¶234. This is an indication of whether IBC has been used or not to predict the block. The encoded bitstream also includes an “indication on the prediction mode used in encoding the current block” (¶269), from which it would be understood by the POSITA that the bitstream includes a direct identification that IBC is used to encode the block. See e.g. ¶87.); and
coding a block of said second zone by using a prediction not of the Intra Block Copy type (When using IBC to code the first zone, “only previously decoded samples can be referred in the prediction process.” ¶ 85. Because the information from the first constituent frame (second zone) that is used to IBC-predict the second constituent frame (first zone) is decoded, it was previously coded. IBC is unavailable for coding the first constituent frame (second zone) - see ¶¶ 233-234 – so it is not coded using IBC, it is coded “by using a prediction not of the Intra Block Copy type” as the claim requires.).
Hannuksela fails to disclose predicting the block of said first zone by using a prediction not of an Intra Block Copy type; predicting the block of said first zone by using a prediction of the Intra Block Copy type using a block of the second zone that has been previously coded and then decoded; selecting one of said predictions, and coding the item of information to indicate the selected prediction type.
Rosewarne discloses predicting a block by using a prediction not of an Intra Block Copy type; predicting the block by using a prediction of the Intra Block Copy type using a block that has been previously coded and then decoded; selecting one of said predictions, and coding an item of information to indicate the selected prediction type (A rate-distortion analysis is performed for a block using inter prediction, intra prediction, and intra block copy. ¶¶ 153-155. The person of ordinary skill in this field would understand that this rate-distortion analysis involves predicting the block according to these various prediction methods, and comparing the rate and distortion of the resulting predicted blocks. The chosen prediction type is encoded and signaled in the bitstream. ¶157. Therefore Rosewarne codes an item of information indicating if IBC or another prediction type was used for the block.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannuksela to incorporate the rate-distortion analysis disclosed in Rosewarne. The POSITA would have recognized that enabling a block-by-block selection of prediction type, which is suggested in the above-cited passages of Rosewarne, would have produced a bitstream of improved compression and/or quality, and would have provided more flexibility to the encoder to enable selection of a desired bitrate and distortion level. See e.g. Rosewarne ¶155.
Claim 2: Hannuksela discloses coding at least one item of location information in respect of the previously coded and then decoded block (Reference blocks at a variety of locations in the first constituent frame are available for IBC prediction of the block second constituent frame. ¶234. The POSITA would appreciate that for the IBC-coded block to be properly decoded, and for the disclosed embodiment to function properly, a location of the reference block would need to be coded by the encoder. Therefore, location information that corresponds to the IBC-predicted (previously coded then decoded) block is implicitly coded by the encoder.).
Claim 4: Hannuksela discloses a coding device comprising: a processing circuit (¶¶68-71) which is designed to perform the method of claim 1. See rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5: Hannuksela discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program comprising program code instructions which when executed by a processor of a coding device configure the coding device (¶71) to perform the method of claim 1. See rejection of claim 1.
Claim 6: the Hannuksela-Rosewarne combination described in the rejection of claim 1 discloses a method comprising:
decoding a data signal (Hannuksela ¶266; Fig. 8) representative of a current image split up into blocks (Hannuksela ¶83) which has been coded, said current image containing at least two distinct first and second zones of blocks which do not overlap and are defined previously to the decoding of any coded block of said data signal (Frame packing of stereoscopic images places non-overlapping left- and right-eye images into a single frame. Hannuksela ¶197. This is equivalent to the claimed first and second “zones” when understood in light of the specification. See e.g. ‘463 patent at 7:38-55. The frame-packed image defines the left- and right-eye zones prior to coding. Hannuksela ¶198.), wherein the first zone is located to the right of the second zone (A first zone, constituent frame #2 is to the right of a second zone, constituent frame #1. See Fig. 6a.), said decoding comprising the following acts performed by a decoding device:
decoding a block of the first zone by:
reading in the data signal an item of information which has a value among a first value and a second value different from the first value, the first value indicating that a prediction of an Intra Block Copy type is to be used to predict the block of the first zone, and the second value indicating that a prediction of an Intra Block Copy type is not to be used to predict the block of the first zone (The bitstream includes information which indicates whether IBC or another prediction type is used to code the current block. Hannuksela ¶234 and Rosewarne ¶¶ 155 and 162.),
selecting among a first decoding process and a second decoding process based on the value of the item of information, the first decoding process comprising decoding the block of the first zone by using the prediction of the Intra Block Copy type in which the block of the first zone is predicted by using a block of the second zone that has been previously decoded, the second decoding process comprising decoding the block of the first zone by using a prediction not of the Intra Block Copy type, and based on the selecting, executing the first decoding process when the item of information has the first value, else executing the second decoding process when the item of information has the second value; and (Based on the signaled coding mode, the block is decoded either by an IBC or a non-IBC type. Rosewarne ¶¶ 165-166 and Hannuksela ¶¶ 234 and 269.), and
decoding a block of said second zone by using a prediction not of the Intra Block Copy type (Hannuksela ¶ 85. See rejection of claim 1 and the description of the encoding of this block. The POSITA would understand that because the decoder performs inverse operations of the encoder, the decoder decodes this block using a non-IBC prediction method.).
Claim 7: Hannuksela discloses reading, in the data signal, of at least one item of location information in respect of the previously coded and then decoded block (Reference blocks at a variety of locations in the first constituent frame are available for IBC prediction of the block second constituent frame. ¶234. The POSITA would appreciate that for the IBC-coded block to be properly decoded, and for the disclosed embodiment to function properly, a location of the reference block would need to be coded by the encoder. Therefore, location information that corresponds to the IBC-predicted (previously coded then decoded) block is implicitly coded by the encoder.).
Claim 9: Hannuksela discloses a decoding device comprising: a processing circuit (Fig. 8 and ¶¶68-71) which is designed to perform the method of claim 6. See rejection of claim 6.
Claim 10: Hannuksela discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program comprising program code instructions which when executed by a processor of a decoding device (Fig. 8 and ¶¶68-71) configure the decoding device to perform the method of claim 6. See rejection of claim 6.
Claim 11: Hannuksela discloses that the block of the first zone is located to the right of the block of the second zone (Fig. 6a and ¶¶ 197-200).
Claim 12: Hannuksela discloses that all blocks of the first zone are located to the right of all blocks of the second zone (Fig. 6a and ¶¶ 197-200).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela-Rosewarne in view of Wang, US 20140049603.
Claim 3: Hannuksela-Rosewarne is silent regarding coding an item of identification information in respect of each of the at least two zones of the current image.
However, Wang discloses coding an item of identification information in respect of each of at least two zones of a current image (The presence, type, and format of frame-packed stereoscopic images are identified by an encoder in extension header information. ¶90. This header information is coded with the image information. Fig. 3. Therefore identification information in respect to the two zones, or frame-packed images, is encoded.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannuksela-Rosewarne with the teachings in Wang, the rationale being to provide increased flexibility in the encoder’s decision of how to frame-pack the stereoscopic images, and to ensure that the frame-packed images are properly processed and displayed by the decoding side.
Claim 8: Hannuksela-Wang discloses that each of the zones of the current image is identified by reading a corresponding item of identification information read in the data signal (Wang ¶90 and Fig. 3.).
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/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See also id. ¶ 206: “Obviously, only the blocks coded or decoded before the current block being coded or decoded can be used as references for the prediction.”
2 Fig. 4 shows two separate encoders for use in an embodiment that employs enhancement layers. See id. ¶ 256. But the encoder may also be simplified to be used to encode a single layer. Id. The POSITA would recognize the single encoder that is depicted in Fig. 4 (e.g., encoder 500) to be a standard video encoder and would conclude that this is used in the IBC embodiments.
Prosecution Insights