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 claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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. 19/321,332 (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. 19/326,156 (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. 19/411,201 (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 § 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 1-7 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 limitations “wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction unit…based on that the default encoding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units” and “wherein the lower coding unit is not partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into two lower coding units”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose these limitations. The examiner notes, in the applicant’s remarks filed 5/18/2026 cite [0156], [0641], and [0643] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing these limitations (see remarks pg. 6, para. 1). However, [0156] is only directed toward possible NxN partition types for a block and does not teach or disclose basing the partition type on whether or not a default coding unit is partitioned into two or four sub blocks. The examiner notes while [0156] discloses using NxN (square) partitions for partitioning a default encoding block, [0156] does not limit the partition types to only include NxN (square) partition types. Further, [0641] and [0643] merely disclose instances of using type based vs tree based partitioning without disclosing conditions for partitioning a block to include a quad or binary partition type.
Claims 2-5 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 1-7 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, the term “lower coding unit” is not clearly defined by the applicant’s specification and the term “lower coding unit” is not commonly used in the art for establishing an acceptable meaning. The examiner notes the examiner is interpreting the term “lower coding unit” to mean a unit (a coding block being a coding unit (CU), prediction unit (PU) or transformation unit (TU)) produced by partitioning a default coding unit (or coding unit (CU)) as defined by FIG. 3e and [0147] of the applicant’s specification.
Claims 2-5 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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (Xiu) (US 2020/0045336) in view of Hannuksela (US 2017/0347026).
Regarding claim 1, Xiu discloses a method for decoding an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on the image (FIG. 3, [0090] [0097], a bitstream including a flag is received);
acquiring partitioning information for a default coding unit included in the image from the bitstream ([0090], 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 (FIG. 14, [0062], [0090], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled and partitioning is performed); and
decoding each of the lower coding units to reconstruct the image ([0049], the image is reconstructed via decoding),
wherein the reconstructing the image comprises generating a prediction block for a block included in the image and a residual block corresponding to the prediction block ([0049], [0050], residual blocks are added to prediction blocks to reconstruct an image),
wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units ([0048], [0062], coding units (CU) are partitioned into prediction units (PU)) based on a size of the lower coding unit ([0062], partitioning of a node (i.e. a coding unit) is based on the size of the node (coding unit)) and based on that the default encoding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units ([0062], a first quad split block is further partitioned; the quad-tree node may be partitioned (e.g., further partitioned) using binary tree in horizontal or vertical direction),
wherein the lower coding unit is not partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into two lower coding units ([0062], The binary tree node may be used as the basic unit of prediction and/or transform without further partitioning).
Xiu 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 Hannuksela into the teachings of Xiu for more efficient image streaming and reproduction in a 360 degree image encoding system.
Regarding claim 2, Xiu discloses the lower coding unit is partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on type-based partitioning ([0062], the quad-tree node may be partitioned (e.g., further partitioned) using binary tree in horizontal or vertical direction).
Regarding claim 3, Xiu discloses wherein whether to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on whether the default coding unit is quad-tree partitioned ([0062], the quad-tree node may be partitioned (e.g., further partitioned) using binary tree in horizontal or vertical direction).
Regarding claim 5, Xiu discloses wherein the default coding unit is partitioned using a tree-based partitioning including a quad-tree partitioning and a binary-tree partitioning ([0062], quad tree binary tree partitioning).
Regarding claim 6, Xiu discloses a method for encoding an image, the method comprising:
obtaining a default coding unit included in the image ([0062], a coding tree unit (CTU) representing a root of a quad tree);
partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units (FIG. 14, [0062], [0090], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled and partitioning is performed);
determining partitioning information for the default coding unit (FIG. 14, [0062], [0090], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled and partitioning is performed);; and
encoding the partitioning information (FIG. 14, [0062], [0090], a split flag for partitioning a CTU is signaled and partitioning is performed) and each of the lower coding units into a bitstream (FIG. 7, a bitstream 620 is encoded),
wherein the encoding the image comprises generating a prediction block for a block included in the image and a residual block corresponding to the prediction block ([0049], [0050], residual blocks are added to prediction blocks to reconstruct an image);
wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units ([0048], [0062], coding units (CU) are partitioned into prediction units (PU)) based on a size of the lower coding unit ([0062], partitioning of a node (i.e. a coding unit) is based on the size of the node (coding unit)) and based on that the default encoding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units ([0062], a first quad split block is further partitioned; the quad-tree node may be partitioned (e.g., further partitioned) using binary tree in horizontal or vertical direction),
wherein the lower coding unit is not partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into two lower coding units ([0062], The binary tree node may be used as the basic unit of prediction and/or transform without further partitioning).
Xiu 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 Hannuksela into the teachings of Xiu for more efficient image streaming and reproduction in 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). Xiu 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 Xiu et al. (Xiu) (US 2020/0045336) in view of Hannuksela (US 2017/0347026), and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu) (US 2013/0022129).
Regarding claim 4, Xiu in view of Hannuksela discloses the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Xiu in view of Hannuksela 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 Xiu in view of Hannuksela for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (Park) (US 2016/0029033) ([0087] partitioning of a block is performed based on a size and a shape of the block).
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