DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Reissue Applications
This application seeks to reissue US patent No. 10,880,535 (“the ‘535 patent”).
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,880,535 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant’s Response to the Non-Final Office Action
The applicant has presented arguments traversing rejections and interpretations that were described in the non-final Office action (NFOA). No amendments have been made in the recent response. For reasons set forth below, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Defective Declaration
The application was objected to and all claims were rejected under § 251 due to a defective reissue declaration. See NFOA at 4 and 8. This issue has not been overcome, and these issues remain.
Non-Limiting Claim Language
The NFOA described that claims 23-27 include language that does not limit their broadest reasonable interpretation. NFOA at 5-8. In particular, the NFOA stated that the content of the signaling information that is recited in these claims “is a mere description of the content of data” that is not given patentable weight because the claims do not recite that anything is “actually done with, or on the basis of, the signaling information.” Id. at 5-6.
The applicant traverses, and submits that the content of the signaling information influences the “parsing” step. Remarks at 1. The applicant states that a “receiver parsing that syntax reads the flag and, based on the flag, determines whether the minimum-value and maximum-value fields for the first and second angles are present and are to be parsed. The flag therefore changes the parsing operation and the location and interpretation of subsequent fields. Likewise, the recited ‘number of regions’ defines the number of region-related data structures represented in the signaling information and limits the scope of the parsing operation.” Id.
This is not persuasive because the claims do not recite what the applicant describes, nor does their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) require this. All that is recited in claim 23 is “parsing the signaling information.” The BRI of the “parsing” step in claim 23 does not require analyzing the signaling information for a flag, and if that flag is present, separating out the minimum/maximum angle information. Nor does the BRI of “parsing” require handling a determined “number of region-related data structures.”
The specification describes a “metadata parser”, whose operations the POSITA would understand correspond to the claimed “parsing” step. See the ‘535 patent at 12:37-59. The metadata parser “may parse/decode the 360-degree-video-related metadata. The metadata parser may deliver the acquired metadata to the decapsulation-processing unit, the data decoder, the re-projection processing unit, and/or the renderer.” Id. Due to the terms “parse/decode” and “and/or” in this passage, the specification may be understood as describing an embodiment where the “parser” simply decodes the metadata and passes it to the decapsulation-processing unit. This understanding would not require the parser to analyze the metadata for flags. According to this, the “parsing” step in claim 23 would not be affected by the content of the signaling information.
The claimed content of the signaling information is used in a re-projection and rendering procedure. The specification describes, in another embodiment, that the “re-projection processing unit may receive metadata for re-projection from the metadata parser … the re-projection processing unit may receive information about the type of 3D model that is used and the details thereof from the metadata parser.” Id. at 12:61-66. According to this embodiment, the parser passes re-projection metadata and “details” of the 3D model to the re-projection processing unit. But the specification does not show that the metadata parser inspects the metadata for the ”pitch angle flag” and “yaw angle flag” that dictate whether the minimum/maximum angle information is present, and parses the angle information based on the presence of the flags. The specification does not describe which element in the system inspects for these flags: the parser, or the re-projection processing unit. The POSITA would understand that either could perform this function.
It is within the scope of the disclosure that the parser passes all “re-projection” metadata to the re-projection processing unit, and this re-projection unit then determines the presence or absence of minimum/maximum angle information based on pitch and yaw angle flags. When claims are read in light of this disclosure, it cannot be assumed that the BRI of claim 23 inherently requires that the parsing step “reads the flag and, based on the flag, determines whether the minimum-value and maximum-value fields for the first and second angles are present and are to be parsed”, as the applicant argues. The claim does not recite this, and the specification does not limit the claim’s BRI to require this. The analysis and subsequent handling of the content of the signaling information may equally be performed in re-projection and rendering steps that are not claimed. Similarly, there is nothing in the claim or in the specification that shows that the parsing step is performed based on the “number of regions” information.
The content of the signaling information therefore does not influence the BRI of the “parsing” step. The signaling information is used in a re-projection and rendering process that is not recited in the claim. Therefore the content of the signaling information that is received in claim 23 is not given patentable weight.
The NFOA also described that claim 28 included contingent language that is not included in the BRI of the claims. See NFOA at 7. The applicant did not address this interpretation.
§ 251 Rejection – Broadening
All claims were rejected under § 251 for being broadened in a reissue application that was filed more than two years after the patent issued. See NFOA at 8-9. The applicant did not address the rejection of claim 16, but traverses the rejection of claim 23. See Remarks at 3. The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The NFOA described how claim 16 had been broadened relative to claim 1 of the ‘535 patent, and stated that claim 23 “has been similarly broadened relative to the claims of the ‘535 patent.” NFOA at 9. The applicant submits that claim 23 has not been properly analyzed. Remarks at 3. The examiner disagrees.
Claim 16 of this application corresponds closely to claim 1 of the patent, and claim 23 corresponds to claim 9 of the patent. Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent was directed to an apparatus for performing the receiving method of claim 9. Claims 1, 9, and 15 of the ‘535 patent all contained the following limitation:
wherein the signaling information includes first range information for representing a first range, 0 to 360 degree of a sphere region based on a z-axis and second range information for representing a second range, 0 to 180 degree of the sphere region based on another axis which is different from the z-axis
No claim of the current reissue application contains this limitation. In place of this limitation, claims 16 and 23 of this reissue application both recite:
wherein the signaling information includes first range information for representing a first range of a first angle including a minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data and second range information for representing a second range of a second angle including a minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data
The NFOA described why claim 16 was broader than the claims of the ‘535 patent. NFOA at 8-9. Claim 23 omits the same limitation from the patent claims that claim 16 omits, and replaces it with the same limitation as claim 16. Because claim 23 differs from the patent claims in the same way as claim 16, it is immediately clear from the record how claim 23 has also been broadened. Therefore the examiner disagrees that the analysis of claim 23 in the § 251 rejection was insufficient.
The applicant only briefly addresses the substance of this rejection. See Remarks at 3. The applicant argues that the new claim limitations “materially restrict the received syntax and the parsing process.” Id. Even if true, this is not relevant to the question of whether the claims have been broadened. Based on a comparison of the limitations that are reproduced above, it is clear that the claims are broader than the patent claims. See the NFOA at 8-9. The applicant has not shown that claims 16 and 23 do not cover an invention that the patent claims did not. This rejection is maintained.
§ 112(b) Rejections
Claims 23-28 were rejected under § 112(b) due to the limitation “wherein the first range information and the second range information are present within the signaling information based on flag information in the signaling information.” NFOA at 10-11. The applicant submits that this is definite because “the flag determines whether the identified range-information fields are present.” Remarks at 2. This argument re-phrases the claim language, but does not address the rejection, which stated that it is not clear whether this wherein clause “requires the performance of any steps.” NFOA at 10. The BRI of the claim does not explicitly or implicitly require that this “wherein” clause requires the “parsing” step to analyze the flag to determine the presence of the first and second range information. It remains unclear how this language limits the process of claim 23. This rejection is maintained.
Claim 23 was also rejected due to the limitation “the signaling information is used to support a range of the 360-degree video data.” NFOA at 11. The applicant responds only by stating that “[t]he phrase ‘used to support a range’ is further objectively defined by the immediately recited first and second angular ranges and their respective minimum and maximum values.” Remarks at 2. This argument does not adequately respond to the rejection, which stated that it is not clear whether this language implicitly requires an un-claimed re-projection and rendering step, which is where the signaling information is “used.” See NFOA at 11. Because this question remains, the rejection is maintained.
§ 112(d) Rejections
Claims 24-27 were rejected under § 112(d) for failing to further limit the claim upon which they depend. NFOA at 12. The applicant responds by arguing that the “signaling fields” that are recited in these claims “are functionally related to and limit the parsing step” in claim 23. Remarks at 2-3. For reasons given above, this is not persuasive. The applicant has not shown that the content of the signaling information influences the manner in which claim 23’s “parsing” step is performed. Therefore the content of the signaling information is seen to be non-limiting printed matter. See NFOA at 5-7 and 12. This rejection is maintained.
Prior Art Rejections
Claims 23-28 were rejected under § 102 based on the interpretation of the claims that has been described above and in the NFOA at 5-8. The applicant submits that the Kunkel reference that was relied upon in these rejections does not disclose signaling information having the content that is described in claim 23. Remarks at 2. Because the examiner maintains that this language is not to be given patentable weight, these arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Suggested Amendment
Other than the issue of broadening, all of the issues that are described above may be overcome by amending claim 23 to recite re-projection and rendering steps that are performed on the basis of the signaling information. If properly claimed, such an amendment would, other than the § 251 rejection, place claims 23-28 in condition for allowance.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.175 – Defective Declaration
The declaration that was filed with this application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.175(b), which states: “If the reissue application seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent … the inventor’s oath or declaration for a reissue application must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden.” The claims of this reissue application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent, but this broadening is not reflected in the declaration. See the §251 rejection below for a discussion of how the claims have been broadened.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 23-27 include language that is not given patentable weight. The scope of a method claim is not limited by language that “does not require steps to be performed.” MPEP 2111.04 I. Claim 23 requires the process steps of “receiving” picture and signaling information, “parsing” the signaling information, and “decoding” the picture. These limitations require steps to be performed, and therefore limit the method of claim 23. But the claims also includes various descriptions of the content of the signaling information that is received. The content of the signaling information does not require any steps to be performed, nor does it affect the performance of any of the process steps that are recited in claims 23-27. As such this language is not limiting.
Claim 23 recites that the signaling information includes “first” and “second range information” and their “minimum value” and “maximum value[s].” These ranges values “are present within the signaling information based on flag information.” The signaling information also includes “a number of regions” of the video. Claims 24-27 include further description of the signaling information.
The specification of the ‘535 patent describes that this signaling information is used in a re-projection and rendering process. See the ‘535 patent Fig. 8-9 and their description, which show how this metadata is used. But claims 23-27 do not include a re-projection or rendering step. Claim 23 includes a “decoding” step, but the ‘535 patent specification shows that this “decoding” step is not performed based on the signaling information that is described in claim 23. Claims 23-27 do not recite any steps that are performed based on this signaling information; this signaling information “does not require steps to be performed.” MPEP 2111.04 I. Stated in another way, the claims do not recite that anything is actually done with, or on the basis of, the signaling information.
The claim language that describes the content of the signaling information is a mere description of the content of data. Claim language that merely describes the “content of information” is equivalent to a printed matter limitation. See MPEP 2111.05 and In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). And because this claim language provides no functional or manipulative difference to the steps that are recited in claims 23-27, it is not given patentable weight.
Claim 23 includes the language “the signaling information is used to support a range of the 360-degree video data.” As described above, the specification of the ‘535 patent shows that the claimed signaling information is used in re-projection and rendering steps. But these steps are not recited in claim 23. Therefore the language describing how the information “is used” is taken to be a description of an intended (and unclaimed) future use of the information. This language does not require the performance of any steps, and as such is not given patentable weight. See also the below §112(b) rejection of the claims due to this language.
Similarly, the claim language describing that “the projected picture is derived from 360-degree video data” is likewise a description of the video data, but does not require, or affect, the performance of any method step. The “decoding” step is agnostic to the fact that the projected picture was derived from 360-degree video. Only in a re-projection step, which is not claimed, is this information relevant. Tor reasons similar to those given above, this language does not limit claim 23 and is not afforded patentable weight.
Claims 24-27 include further descriptions of the signaling information that is likewise not given weight.
Claim 28 recites that stereo information indicates a frame packing type “when the 360-degree video data corresponds to stereoscopic video.” This does not require that the video is actually stereoscopic. Instead, this describes what the signaling information contains in the condition that the video is stereoscopic. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a method claim does not include steps that are only performed when a non-required condition is met. See MPEP 2111.04 II. Such is the case here. While the “decoding” step of claim 23 may conceivably be performed based on information indicating a frame packing arrangement of received video, the claim does not require the received video to be stereoscopic. Instead, the BRI of this claim includes one of two scenarios: a) the video is stereoscopic, or b) the video is not stereoscopic. In the scenario in which the video is not stereoscopic, the decoding step does not rely on the signaling information. This scenario is included in the BRI of claim 28, and therefore this language in claim 28 is not given patentable weight.
Based on the above, the language that does not limit claim 23 will be shown below using strikethrough.
23. A method of receiving 360-degree video, the method comprising:
receiving a projected picture and signaling information,
parsing the signaling information,
decoding the projected picture.
To overcome this issue, the examiner recommends amending claim 23 to further recite re-projecting and rendering steps that are performed based on the signaling information. If the claim were amended to include these steps, then the content of the signaling information would be given patentable weight because it influences the manner in which these steps are performed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 16-28 are rejected under §251 for being based upon a defective reissue declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under §251 as being broadened in a reissue application filed outside the two year statutory period.
A claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects. See MPEP 1412.03 I.
Claim 1 of the ‘535 patent included the following limitation:
wherein the signaling information includes first range information for representing a first range, 0 to 360 degree of a sphere region based on a z-axis and second range information for representing a second range, 0 to 180 degree of the sphere region based on another axis which is different from the z-axis
Independent claims 9 and 15 had similar language. Claim 16 of this reissue application omits the above-quoted limitation. Claim 16 now recites:
wherein the signaling information includes first range information for representing a first range of a first angle including a minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data and second range information for representing a second range of a second angle including a minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data
While claim 16 is narrower than claim 1 of the ‘535 patent in some respects, it is broader in others. In particular, claim 16 now recites that “first range” and “second range” information include a “minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data information.” But claim 16 does not require that the “first range” is “0 to 360 degree of a sphere region based on a z-axis” or that the “second range” is “0 to 180 degree of the sphere region based on another axis which is different from the z-axis.” Claim 1 of the ‘535 patent, which included these limitations, required something that claim 16 of this reissue application does not. Therefore claim 16 includes in its scope a “product or process which would not have infringed the patent.” MPEP 1412.03 I. Claim 23 has similarly been broadened relative to the claims of the ‘535 patent.
Because this reissue application was filed more than two years after the issue date of the ‘535 patent, the claims cannot be broadened. MPEP 1412.03 IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 23-28 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.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the first range information and the second range information are present within the signaling information based on flag information in the signaling information.” The scope of a method claim is not limited by language that “does not require steps to be performed.” MPEP 2111.04 I. In claim 23, is not clear whether the above-quoted “wherein” clause requires the performance of any steps.
The specification describes that the 360-degree video contains signaling information that may include a “pitch angle flag” and a “yaw angle flag.” See ‘535 patent at 2:55-60. These flags indicate whether the 360-degree video supports less than 180 degrees of pitch and less than 360 degrees of yaw, respectively. Id. If these flags are present, the signaling information further includes maximum and minimum pitch or yaw angle information. Id. at 2:61-3:5.
Claim 23 is drawn to a method of receiving the 360-degree video. It is not clear what limitation the above-quoted language in claim 23 places on the method of receiving the video. This language does not appear to require determining that the “first” and “second range information” are included in the signaling information based on the flag information. Instead, this language only seems to describe why the range information is there: it is present in the signaling information due to the presence of (or “based on”) the flag information. As a mere description of the data that is received, it is unclear how, or whether, this limits claim 23. Claims 24-28 inherit this limitation and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 23 includes the language “the signaling information is used to support a range of the 360-degree video data.” The specification of the ‘535 patent shows that the claimed signaling information is used in re-projection and rendering steps. See ‘535 patent Fig. 9 and its description. But these steps are not recited in claim 23. It is not clear if this claim language implicitly requires re-projection and rendering of the decoded picture, or if it merely describes a manner in which the signaling information is intended to be used in a future operation that is not recited in the claim. Therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As described above, claims 24-27 only recite a description of the content of the signaling information, which is not given patentable weight. Because the language of these claims is not given patentable weight, these claims do not further limit claim 23, from which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 28 describes that the signaling information indicates “a type of frame packing arrangement of the 360-degree video when the 360-degree video data corresponds to stereoscopic video.” As described above, this shows the content of the signaling information when a certain non-required condition occurs. The BRI of this claim includes one of: a) the scenario where the video is stereoscopic, and b) the video is not stereoscopic. In the scenario where the video is stereoscopic, and the signaling information includes an indication of frame packing arrangement, the decoding step will be performed based on received signaling information. This is because decoding is performed differently for frame packed stereoscopic video. This shows that claim 28, while not necessarily limiting the BRI of claim 23, specifies “a further limitation” on claim 23. As such, claim 28 is not rejected under §112(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kunkel, US 20180374192.
Examiner’s note: See the Claim Construction heading above for a discussion of why the struck-through language below does not limit claims 23-28.
Claim 23: Kunkel discloses a method of receiving 360-degree video, the method comprising:
receiving a projected picture and signaling information (Data flow 704 is received and includes projected 360-degree video data and metadata, or signaling information. ¶¶ 60, 105-107, and ¶150.),
parsing the signaling information (Metadata, or signaling information, is extracted (parsed). ¶¶ 39 and 153),
decoding the projected picture (¶76.).
Claims 24-28 describe the content of the signaling information. For reasons given under the “Claim Construction” heading above, these claims include only non-limiting language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-22 are rejected above, but otherwise recite allowable subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose the following limitations in claim 16:
generating signaling information for the 360-degree video data
transmitting the projected picture and the signaling information, wherein the signaling information includes first range information for representing a first range of a first angle including a minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data and second range information for representing a second range of a second angle including a minimum value and a maximum value related to the 360-degree video data, and
wherein the first range information and the second range information are present within the signaling information based on flag information in the signaling information
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights