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 .
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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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-info-I.jsp.
US Patent No. 12425629
Claim 1-3 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 5 of US Patent No. 12015796 (Application Number: 17/769903).
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12425629. That is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12425629.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 2 and 3 of the instant application are recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 112425629. That is, each of claims 3 and 5 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12425629.
US Patent No. 12015796
Claim 1-3 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 5 of US Patent No. 12015796 (Application Number: 17/769903).
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12015796. That is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12015796.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 2 and 3 of the instant application are recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12015796. That is, each of claims 3 and 5 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12015796.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim/claims is/are directed to “storing instructions” and/or “storing bitstreams” but claim/claims does not have any steps related to “storing instructions” and “storing bitstreams”, therefore, the scope of the claim/claims are/is vague and indefinite.
Claim 3 is directed to a storage medium for storing a bitstream. In other words, storage medium merely stores the bitstream as an output of an encoding method.
The bitstream itself has no functional relationship with the storage medium and no processor is recited. Significantly, the bitstream being stored has no disclosed or claim-defined structure that differentiates the claimed data stream from any other data stream such as a digital music file stored on a memory stick.
Applicant is advised to change it, for example “… storing instruction to perform the video encoding method …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Hendrry et al. (US 20140376643, hereinafter Hendrry) .
Claim 3’s recitation of “a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”.
Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps).
To be given patentable weight, computer readable medium 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 computer readable medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for the information data (i.e. 2-dimensional image projected from an image with a 3-dimensional projection structure and including at least one face etc.) , no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 3 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor 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 Hendrry which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶115)
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrry et al. (US 20140376643, hereinafter Hendrry) in view of Bross et al., ("Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7)," JVET-P2001-vD: Geneva, CH, 1-11 Oct. 2019, , hereinafter Bross)
Regarding Claim 1, Hendrry discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding device, the method comprising:
obtaining image information through a bitstream, wherein the image information includes entry point related information; deriving at least one entry point in a current picture based on the entry point related information ([0113] access point of a bitstream for performing parallel decoding using the tile structure (tile substream) or wavefront parallel processing (WPP) substream is defined as an entry point such as a start point of each WPP substream or each tile of a bitstream to be subjected to parallel processing; Claim 7); and
decoding the current picture based on the at least one entry point ([0114] signal an entry point of each tile or entry point of a slice header of a WPP substream. Although a tile and WPP may employ different encoding/decoding techniques, an entry point of a tile and an entry point of a substream applied WPP may be signaled in the same manner. [0115] In parallel processing, a tile always starts at a byte aligned location, whereas a substream applied WPP ("WPP substream") may not start at a byte aligned location. Byte alignment means alignment in bytes),
wherein the entry point related information includes offset length information and entry point offset information, the offset length information is related to a number of bits of the entry point offset information ([0151] num_of_entry_points_minus1 specifies a number of entry points in the bitstream in a slice and since a number of entry point offsets is smaller by 1 than the number of entry points, num_of_entry_points_minus1 may also specify a number of syntax elements entry_point_offset[i] in the slice header),
wherein the entry point related information includes an entry point offset present flag related to whether entry point offsets are signaled ([0158] If tile_info_present_flag is 0 and num_substream_minus1 is greater than 0, that is, tile_info_present_flag==0 && num_substream_minus1>0, all entry points are entry points of WPP substreams. That is, if tile information is absent and a plurality of substreams is present, all entry points may be inferred as entry points of WPP sub streams), and
based on a case where the number of entry points is greater than 0, the offset length information and the entry point offset information are included in a slice header for the current slice ([0159] If tile_info_present_flag is 1 and num_substream_minus1 is greater than 0, that is, tile_info_present_flag==1 && num_substream_minus1>0, when i is not 0 (i!=0) and (i+1) % (num_substream1+1)==0, an i-th entry point is an entry point of a tile that is an i-th entry point. Otherwise, entry points are entry points of WPP substreams. That is, if tile information is present and a plurality of substreams is present, entry points may be inferred as entry points of WPP substreams or entry points of tiles and WPP sub streams).
Hendrry does not explicitly disclose the at least one entry point is derived based on the offset length information and the entry point offset information and entry point offsets are signaled based on a case where a value of the entry point offset present flag is 1, a number of entry points in a current slice is derived. wherein the entry point offset present flag is included in a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein the entry point related information includes an entropy coding synchronization enabled flag related to whether a synchronization process for context variables is invoked.
Bross teaches the at least one entry point is derived based on the offset length information and the entry point offset information and entry point offsets are signaled based on a case where a value of the entry point offset present flag is 1, a number of entry points in a current slice is derived (Section 7.3.2.4).entry_point_offsets_present_flag is included in picture parameter set in raw byte sequence payload (RBSP) syntax)
wherein the entry point offset present flag is included in a sequence parameter set (SPS) (Section 7.3.2.4, entry_point_offsets_present_flag is included in picture parameter set in raw byte sequence payload (RBSP) syntax)
wherein the entry point related information includes an entropy coding synchronization enabled flag related to whether a synchronization process for context variables is invoked (Section 7.3.2.4).entry_point_offsets_present_flag is included in picture parameter set in raw byte sequence payload (RBSP) syntax).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of entry point offsets are signaled based on a case where a value of the entry point offset present flag as taught by Bross (Section 7.3.2.4 ) into the encoding & decoding system of Hendrry in order to provide encoding and decoding systems with high level of versatile applications (Bross, Abstract) resulting in the predictable result of improving encoding efficiency.
Regarding Claim 2 , Encoding method claim 2 of using the corresponding decoding method claimed in claim 1 and, the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 3 , Computer-readable claim 3 of using the corresponding decoding method claimed in claim 1 and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, DAVID CZEKAJ can be reached on (571) 272-7327. 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights