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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is merely a duplicate of the abstract used for earlier filed applications and is not specific to the instant disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Claim 2 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream”. There are no recitations of a processor or other element-merely a bitstream content (bitstream comprising encoded data of a current block encoded based on a prediction sample of the current block). Under MPEP 2111.05(III), this claim is merely machine-readable media. The Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored 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, claim 2 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
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(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(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-mfo-Lisp.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 2, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12/413,711 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because most of the limitations of the instant application are similarly recited in the cited patented document.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JOSHI et al., (From IDS: US 2015/0023405).
Regarding claim 1: JOSHI teaches a video signal encoding device, comprising: a processor configured to: determine whether an Intra Sub Partitions (ISP) mode is applied to a current block [¶0088 teaches: Partitioning modes may differ between (i.e. determination is made) whether the CU is skip or direct mode encoded, intra-prediction mode encoded] when intra-prediction is performed on the current block [Abstract: the video decoder may perform intra-prediction to generate prediction data for a current block of a current video slice]; generate a reference sample for the current block [¶0092 teaches: When the video coder generates a predictive block according to a directional intra-prediction mode, the video coder may, for each respective sample of the predictive block, assign to the respective sample a value of a reference sample (or a weighted combination of reference samples) that is aligned with the respective sample in a direction corresponding to the directional intra-prediction mode.]; configure a value of a filter flag for specifying a filter coefficient of an interpolation filter applied to the reference sample [¶0176 teaches: Setting filterFlag to 0 may imply that no smoothing or bilinear interpolation filtering (binIntFlag) is applied to the intra-prediction reference samples; and ¶0177 teaches: [0177] In accordance with another example technique of this disclosure, a metric (such as a variance or a sum of absolute difference between neighboring reference samples) is used to determine whether smoothing or bilinear interpolation filtering (binIntFlag) is applied to intra-prediction reference samples. In other words, a video coder determines, based on a metric, whether to apply smoothing or bilinear interpolation filtering to intra-prediction reference samples.]; generate a prediction sample of the current block by performing filtering on the reference sample by using the interpolation filter having the filter coefficient specified by the filter flag [¶0130 teaches: As described in JCTVC-N0183, this adaptation is performed for all the prediction samples. In other words, a video coder may determine, for each sample of the predictive block, whether to apply the bilinear interpolation filter.]; and encode the current block based on the prediction sample [¶0370 teaches: the video coder may adaptively disable the one or more filters for individual PUs or TUs in a CU based on one or more characteristics of individual sets of intra-prediction samples neighboring the respective PUs or TUs.].
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 has been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because claim 2 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method”. As such, claim 2 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 2 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is generated should not be given patentable weight.
JOSHI, which is analogous art, discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored therein [¶0014 teaches: a computer-readable data storage medium (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium) having instructions stored thereon]. As such, JOSHI clearly anticipates the non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing a bitstream.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular,
WANG et al., (US 2013/0136175) teaches techniques for transform partitioning in an intra-prediction video coding process. In one example, for a given intra-predicted block, a reduced number of transform unit partition options is allowed, based on certain conditions. In another example, transform units are decoupled from prediction units for intra-predicted block. For a given prediction unit, transforms of different sizes and shapes from the prediction unit may be applied. In another example, a reduced number of intra-prediction modes are allowed for a prediction unit having a non-square shape.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights