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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the application of the prior art, Rapaka, in claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the motivation to combine the Rapaka and Hannuksela references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to modify the teaching of Rapaka with the teachings of Hannuksela since Rapaka is directed toward micro level encoding while Hannuksela is directed toward a macro level network streaming architecture for 360 degree video and the references both provide completely different technical solutions in non-analogous fields (see remarks pg. 7, para. 1-6). The examiner contends both Rapaka and Hannuksela are analogous art since both are directed toward increasing coding efficiency for streaming a bitstream (Rapaka: [0003]; Hannuksela [0006], [0112], [0117]), albeit, while Hannuksela is directed toward streaming of view port images. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the encoding process taught by Rapaka to incorporate features (i.e. syntaxes) of the coding process taught by Hannuksela for more efficient coding dependent upon the application of the coding process of Rapaka (in this case, for performing viewport encoding and transmission).
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,189 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/317,148 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,186 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,188 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,187 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,183 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite the amended limitation “wherein each image partitions comprises a plurality of default encoding parts having a same type, the type for the plurality of default encoding parts is selected from a plurality of candidate types including a first type and a second type, the first type corresponds to the default encoding part identical to one encoding sub-unit and the second type corresponds to the default encoding part having consecutive two encoding sub-units”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation.
Claims 3-5 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite the limitation “wherein each image partitions comprises a plurality of default encoding parts having a same type, the type for the plurality of default encoding parts is selected from a plurality of candidate types including a first type and a second type, the first type corresponds to the default encoding part identical to one encoding sub-unit and the second type corresponds to the default encoding part having consecutive two encoding sub-units. It is unclear how a partition may both be comprised of a plurality of similar type partitions when the first partition type consists of only a single sub unit.
Claims 3-5 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka et al. (Rapaka) (US 2016/0227214) in view of Hannuksela et al. (Hannuksela) (US 2017/0347026).
Regarding claim 1, Rapaka discloses a method for decoding an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image (FIG. 3, [0136], an encoded bitstream is received by decoder 30);
obtaining information on image partitioning for the image based on the bitstream ([0157], split information is signaled by the encoder and received by the decoder);
obtaining a plurality of image partitions included in the image based on the information on image partitioning ([0157], split information is signaled by the encoder and received by the decoder for partitioning an image); and
decoding the plurality of image partitions ([0144], [0145], the image blocks are reconstructed),
wherein each image partitions (please see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection regarding this limitation above) comprises a plurality of default encoding parts having a same type (FIGs. 5a-5d, 6a-6d, each region is made of prediction units/sub prediction units), the type for the plurality of default encoding parts is selected from a plurality of candidate types including a first type and a second type (FIG. 5a-5d, [0016], FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate examples of how a coding unit may be partitioned into prediction units, in accordance with the techniques of the present disclosure;[0059], the coding unit is able to be partitioned into fixed size partitions (i.e. NxN and 2Nx2N)), the first type corresponds to the default encoding part identical to one encoding sub-unit (FIG. 5A) and the second type corresponds to the default encoding part having consecutive two encoding sub-units (FIGs. 5B and 5C).
Rapaka is silent about wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image.
Hannuksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0288], [0298], [0306], yaw information for the image (viewport) is signaled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of Rapaka for a more accurate reproduction of an image and to reduce the bit rate needed to transport the image (Hannuksela: [0006], [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Rapaka discloses wherein the information on partitioned regions comprises information indicating image partitioning ([0023], a split enable flag is signaled, [0157], [0164], In some examples, a video coder may code a syntax element that specifies whether a current PU is divided into a plurality of sub-PUs) and partitioning type information indicating partitioning form ([0157], In each of FIGS. 6A-6D, a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information. In some examples, a video coder may code one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of lines (i.e., rows or columns) that are in the sub-PUs. For instance, in the example of FIG. 6A, a video coder may code a syntax element that specifies how many lines are included in sub-PU0 (i.e., specifies the value of nL). In some examples, a video coder may code a syntax element that indicates whether the current PU is divided horizontally or vertically).
Regarding claim 6, Rapaka discloses a method for encoding an image, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of partitioned regions included in the image ([0150]-[0158], the video coder partitions an image);
obtaining information on image partitioning for the image based on the obtained image partitions ([0157], a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information);
encoding the information on image partitioning into a bitstream ([0157], a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information); and
encoding the plurality of image partitions into the bitstream ([0087], [0092], [0165], coding units are partitioned into prediction units to generate a bitstream),
wherein each image partitions (please see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection regarding this limitation above) comprises a plurality of default encoding parts having a same type (FIGs. 5a-5d, 6a-6d, each region is made of prediction units/sub prediction units), the type for the plurality of default encoding parts is selected from a plurality of candidate types including a first type and a second type (FIG. 5a-5d, [0016], FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate examples of how a coding unit may be partitioned into prediction units, in accordance with the techniques of the present disclosure;[0059], the coding unit is able to be partitioned into fixed size partitions (i.e. NxN and 2Nx2N)), the first type corresponds to the default encoding part identical to one encoding sub-unit (FIG. 5A) and the second type corresponds to the default encoding part having consecutive two encoding sub-units (FIGs. 5B and 5C).
Rapaka is silent about wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image.
Hannuksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0288], [0298], [0306], yaw information for the image (viewport) is signaled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of Rapaka for a more accurate reproduction of an image and to reduce the bit rate needed to transport the image (Hannuksela: [0006], [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1. Rapaka further discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream (FIG. 3, [0136], an encoded bitstream is received by decoder 30) and transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 3, [0136], an encoded bitstream is received by decoder 30).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka et al. (Rapaka) (US 2016/0227214) in view of Hannuksela et al. (Hannuksela) (US 2017/0347026), and further in view of Kirkenko et al. (Kirkenko) (US 2007/0086515).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Rapaka in view of Hannuksela is silent about wherein the information on partitioned regions comprises information indicating scanning method for default encoding parts included in an image partition; and wherein the information indicating scanning method comprises a raster scan method and a clockwise scan method.
Kirkenko from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the information on partitioned regions comprises information indicating scanning method for default encoding parts included in an image partition (pg. 5, ln. 29, syntax FMOChangeDirection signals box-out clockwise scan, raster scan, or wipe right scan); and wherein the information indicating scanning method comprises a raster scan method and a clockwise scan method (pg. 5, ln. 29, syntax FMOChangeDirection signals box-out clockwise scan, raster scan, or wipe right scan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kirkenko into the teachings of Rapaka in view of Hannuksela for a more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2013/0136175) (FIGs. 4A-6, an image is divided into coding unit, prediction units, and transform units).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights