DETAILED ACTION
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 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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/326,156 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims and the claims of the co-pending application are not patentably distinct as shown by 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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,199 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims and the claims of the co-pending application are not patentably distinct as shown by 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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,199 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims and the claims of the co-pending application are not patentably distinct as shown by 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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,201 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims and the claims of the co-pending application are not patentably distinct as shown by 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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/411,202 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims and the claims of the co-pending application are not patentably distinct as shown by 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 § 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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Hannuksela (US 2017/0347026).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a method for decoding an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on the image ([0050], [0053], [0074], [0075], a bitstream including a split flag is received);
acquiring partitioning information for a default coding unit ([0048], a coding tree unit (CTU) representing a root of a quad tree of a typical 64x64 size) included in the image from the bitstream ([0048], [0053], [0074], [0075], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled);
partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units based on the partitioning information for the default coding unit ([0048]-[0050], [0053], [0074], [0075], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled and the CTU is partitioned according to a quad tree binary tree structure); and
decoding each of the lower coding units to reconstruct the image ([0118], [0156], the image id reconstructed via decoding),
wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units ([0040], coding units (CU) are partitioned into prediction units (PU)) based on a size of the lower coding unit ([0049], [0050], partitioning of a node (i.e. a coding unit) is based on the size of the node (coding unit)).
Zhao 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], yaw information is encoded).
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 Wang into the teachings of Zhao for more efficient image streaming and reproduction (Hannuksela: [0002]) and for applying the teachings of Wang to a 360 degree image encoding system.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses the lower coding unit is partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on type-based partitioning ([0053], a flag signaling horizontal or vertical splitting).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses wherein whether to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on whether the default coding unit is quad-tree partitioned ([0050], if the coding unit is a quad tree block and of a certain size, partitioning of the coding unit is/is not performed).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses wherein the default coding unit is partitioned using a tree-based partitioning including a quad-tree partitioning and a binary-tree partitioning ([0049], quad tree binary tree partitioning).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses a method for encoding an image, the method comprising:
obtaining a default coding unit included in the image ([0048], a coding tree unit (CTU) representing a root of a quad tree of a typical 64x64 size);
partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units ([0048], [0053], [0074], [0075], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled);
determining partitioning information for the default coding unit ([0048], [0053], [0074], [0075], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled); and
encoding the partitioning information ([0048], [0053], [0074], [0075], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled) and each of the lower coding units into a bitstream ([0082], [0120], [0155], a bitstream is encoded),
wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units ([0040], coding units (CU) are partitioned into prediction units (PU)) based on a size of the lower coding unit ([0049], [0050], partitioning of a node (i.e. a coding unit) is based on the size of the node (coding unit)).
Zhao 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], yaw information is encoded).
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 Wang into the teachings of Zhao for more efficient image streaming and reproduction (Hannuksela: [0002]) and for applying the teachings of Wang to a 360 degree image encoding system.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 (see claim 6 above). Zhao further discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream and transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 1, the bitstream 16 is received at decoder 30).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2017/0344843), and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu) (US 2013/0022129).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Zhoa is silent about wherein whether to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on a prediction mode of the default coding unit.
Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein whether to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on a prediction mode of the default coding unit ([0020], Once the splitting of CU hierarchical tree is done, each leaf CU is subject to further split into prediction units (PUs) according to prediction type and PU partition).
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 Liu into the teachings of Zhao in view of Wang for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Conclusion
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