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 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. 19/426386 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/411,191 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/426,402 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/426,432 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/317,151 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/320,777 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/411,190 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/411,192 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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. 19/411,193 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims 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 § 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)(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(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2018/0176468).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image (FIG. 1, a video source is received by an encoder 28);
obtaining information on image resizing for the image based on the bitstream ([0081], [0141], [0163], [0204], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled to indicate a region of interest in an image for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing));
reconstructing the image by decoding the bitstream ([0115], the image is reconstructed by a decoder); and
performing image resizing for the reconstructed image based on the image resizing information ([0081], [0141], [0163], [0204], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled to indicate a region of interest in an image for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing)),
wherein the reconstructing the image comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image to generate a prediction block ([0004], [0087], [0089], intra prediction is performed to generate a prediction block),
wherein the information on image resizing comprises offset factors for each directions of the reconstructed image ([0081], [0141], [0163], [0204], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled to indicate a region of interest in an image for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing)), and
wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0167], an amount of yaw rotation is signaled).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
generating a bitstream by encoding the image ([0049], the encoder generates a bit stream); and
encoding information on image resizing for the image into the bitstream ([0081], [0141], [0163], [0204], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled to indicate a region of interest in an image for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing));
wherein the encoding the image comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image to generate a prediction block ([0004], [0087], [0089], intra prediction is performed to generate a prediction block),
wherein the information on image resizing is used for performing image resizing for the image when being reconstructed ([0081], [0141], [0163], [0204], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled to indicate a region of interest in an image for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing)),
wherein the information on image resizing comprises offset factors for each directions of the image ([0081], [0141], [0163], [0204], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled to indicate a region of interest in an image for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing));, and
wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0167], an amount of yaw rotation is signaled).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above. Wang further discloses transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 1, the bitstream is transmitted to a device 40).
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 Hannuksela (US 2017/0085917) in view of Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2018/0176468).
Regarding claim 1, Hannuksela discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image (FIG. 5, a bitstream is received by a decoder);
obtaining information on image resizing for the image based on the bitstream (FIG. 10, [0318], [0363], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing));
reconstructing the image by decoding the bitstream ([0187], the image is reconstructed by a decoder); and
performing image resizing for the reconstructed image based on the image resizing information (FIG. 10, [0318], [0363], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing)),
wherein the reconstructing the image comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image to generate a prediction block ([0052], intra prediction is performed),
wherein the image resizing information comprises offset factors for each direction of the reconstructed image (FIG. 10, [0318], [0363], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing)).
Hannuksela is silent about wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image.
Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image ([0167], an amount of yaw rotation 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 Wang into the teachings of Hannuksela for more efficient encoding/decoding of 360 degree video data.
Regarding claim 2, Hannuksela discloses wherein the image resizing is performed further considering scaling factors for both a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction, and the scaling factor for the lateral direction and the scaling factor for the longitudinal direction are obtained independently from each other ([0318], ScaleFactorHor and ScaleFactorVer).
Regarding claim 3, Hannuksela discloses wherein the image resizing is performed based on a resizing value, and the resizing value is obtained based on the offset factor included in the image resizing information and a decoding setting (FIG. 10, [0318], offsets are used for deriving a scale factor based on encoder/decoder programmed settings).
Regarding claim 5, Hannuksela discloses wherein the image resizing for a chroma component is performed based on the image resizing for a luma component ([0327], [0363], An inter-layer resampling process for obtaining a resampled chroma sample value may be specified identically or similarly to the above-described process for a luma sample value).
Regarding claim 6, Hannuksela discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
generating a bitstream by encoding the image ([0201], the encoder generates a bit stream); and
encoding information on image resizing for the image into the bitstream (FIG. 10, [0318], [0363], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing));
wherein the encoding the image comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image to generate a prediction block ([0052], intra prediction is performed),
wherein the information on image resizing is used for performing image resizing for the image when being reconstructed (FIG. 10, [0318], [0363], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing));,
wherein the information on image resizing comprises offset factors for each directions of the image (FIG. 10, [0318], [0363], left, right, top, and bottom offsets are signaled for performing image upsampling/downsampling (resizing)).
Hannuksela is silent about wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image.
Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image ([0167], an amount of yaw rotation 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 Wang into the teachings of Hannuksela for more efficient encoding/decoding of 360 degree video data.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above. Hannuksela further discloses transmitting the bitstream ([0280], the bitstream is transmitted).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela (US 2017/0085917) in view of Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2018/0176468), and further in view of
Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) (US 2017/0034532).
Regarding claim 4, Hannuksela in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 3 (see claim 3 above).
Hannuksela in view of Wang is silent about wherein the resizing value is calculated as equal to the offset factor multiplied by 2 according to a decoding setting.
Yamamoto from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the resizing value is calculated as equal to the offset factor multiplied by 2 according to a decoding setting ([0273], a value obtained by multiplying a syntax value of the corresponding reference region offset information by 2 is set as a reference region offset).
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 Yamamoto Wang into the teachings of Hannuksela in view of Wang for more efficient encoding/decoding of 360 degree video data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hannuksela (US 2017/0347026) ([0289], yaw rotation information is signaled).
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