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 .
Priority
The applicant is advised the instant application is only entitled to priority as of the filing date of the instant application, 8/13/2024, as opposed to the filing dates of the multiple parent applications for which the instant application seeks priority since neither of the parent applications disclose the subject matter claimed in the instant application (please see the 35 USC 112 rejections below).
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 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/439,653 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/439,657 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/439,660 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/439,662 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/439,665 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/452,724 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/452,727 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/452,729 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/452,732 (reference application). Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “obtaining, from a bitstream, information indicating a number of objects in the filtered image; obtaining, from a bitstream, information related to regions on the objects based on the information indicating the number of objects; and derive the regions based on the information indicating the number of the objects and the information related to the regions, wherein the information related to the regions include information indicating sizes of the regions and information indicating positions of the regions”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose these limitations. The examiner notes [0143] of the applicant’s originally filed specification distinguishes block -based encoding from object-based encoding, thus differentiating an object from a block (i.e. a prediction unit (PU block), a coding unit (CU block), a transform unit (TU block) or any combination of such blocks or units such as partitions, slices, and/or regions). Thus, the applicant’s specification fails to teach signaling of information for a number of objects in a filtered image and partitioning of the filtered image into regions based on the signaled number of objects and information indicating sizes and locations of the partitioned regions.
Claims 2-4 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein a size of the filtered image is smaller than a size of an image indicated by encoding information”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “based on a value of a flag obtained from the bitstream, the information related to the regions is determined depending on information included in a previous SEI message”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for reasons similar to claim 1 above. Claim 6 further states the limitation “determining objects in the filtered image; generating information indicating a number of the objects in the filtered image; generating information related to regions on the objects based on the number of the objects, wherein the information related to the regions include information indicating sizes of the regions and information indicating positions of the regions”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose these limitations.
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, 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (Choi) (US 2020/0236377).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a method of decoding an image, comprising:
predicting blocks in the image to generate prediction blocks of the blocks ([0064] samples used for prediction are stored);
generating residual blocks of blocks of the image ([0064], a residual is generated);
reconstructing the image based on the prediction blocks and the residual blocks ([0058], [0115], the image is reconstructed);
filtering the reconstructed image to generate a filtered image ([0065] loop filtering is applied to the image);
obtaining, from a bitstream, information indicating a number of objects ([0121], tiles; please see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection regarding interpretation of the word “objects” above) in the filtered image ([0114], tile information generated by the encoder in FIG. 3, is passed to a decoder 433 after loop filter 356; [0121], a number of tile rows and columns in an image is signaled; [0122] a number of tile groups is signaled);
obtaining, from a bitstream, information related to regions on the objects based on the information indicating the number of objects ([0018], [0104], tile size info is signaled, [0122], tile position information is signaled); and
derive the regions based on the information indicating the number of the objects and the information related to the regions (FIG. 7, [0115], the decoder generates tile groups based on tile characteristic information signaled by the encoder; FIG. 8, step 802, the tile group is reconstructed),
wherein the information related to the regions include information indicating sizes of the regions and information indicating positions of the regions ([0018], [0104], tile size info is signaled, [0122], tile position information is signaled).
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses wherein the information indicating the number of the objects and the information related to the regions are obtained from a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message of the bitstream ([0058], syntax is signaled in a SEI).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses a method of encoding an image, comprising:
predicting blocks in the image to generate prediction blocks of the blocks ([0064] samples used for prediction are stored);
generating residual blocks of blocks of the image ([0064], a residual is generated);
reconstructing the image based on the prediction blocks and the residual blocks ([0058], [0115], the image is reconstructed);
filtering the reconstructed image to generate a filtered image ([0065] loop filtering is applied to the image);
determining objects ([0121], tiles; please see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection regarding interpretation of the word “objects” above) in the filtered image ([0114], tile information generated by the encoder in FIG. 3, is passed to a decoder 433 after loop filter 356; [0121], a number of tile rows and columns in an image is signaled; [0122] a number of tile groups is signaled);
generating information indicating a number of the objects in the filtered image ([0114], tile information generated by the encoder in FIG. 3, is passed to a decoder 433 after loop filter 356; [0121], a number of tile rows and columns in an image is signaled; [0122] a number of tile groups is signaled);
generating information related to regions on the objects based on the number of the objects ([0018], [0104], tile size info is signaled, [0122], tile position information is signaled),
wherein the information related to the regions include information indicating sizes of the regions and information indicating positions of the regions ([0018], [0104], tile size info is signaled, [0122], tile position information is signaled).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above. Choi further discloses transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 4, the bitstream is transmitted via channel 460).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ratner et al. (Ratner) (US 2017/0078664) ([0028]-[0030], [0033], objects are counted to generate a mask and the frame is partitioned based on the generated mask).
Park et al. (Park) (US 2018/0139453) ([0147], split direction information is signaled; [0152], [0157], partition location and size 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