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 U.S. Patent No. 10,880,335 (“the ‘335 patent”). In a preliminary amendment, claims 1-15 of the ‘335 patent have been canceled, and new claim 16-28 have been introduced.
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.
Recapture Analysis
The claims of this application have been broadened relative to the claims of the ‘535 patent. See the §251 rejection below. However, this broadening, while omitting certain surrendered limitations, does not amount to an attempt to recapture the surrendered subject matter.
During prosecution of US Application 16/076,268, the following limitation was added to claim 1 in order to overcome a prior art rejection from the preceding Office action:
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, and wherein the first range information and the second range information are present within the signaling information depending on information included in the signaling information
See the claims and Remarks in the 06/26/2020 Applicant response in 16/076,268. Because this limitation was “relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable,” it was surrendered. MPEP 1412.02(II)(B). The claims of this reissue application do not include this limitation verbatim. The reissue claims therefore omit, in part, omit surrendered subject matter. However, the omitted claim limitation is modified in the reissue claims to recite that the first and second range information include minimum and maximum values of the first and second angles. This represents a material narrowing of the claims relative to the surrendered subject matter, as this limitation does not appear to have been disclosed in the prior art that was relied upon in the original examination. See MPEP 1412.02(II)(C). Accordingly, the claims are not rejected under §251 for violating the recapture rule. It is also noted that claim broadening is not permitted because this reissue application was filed more than 2 years after the issue date of the ‘535 patent, and therefore the question of recapture should not arise. See below.
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 has been amended to omit 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
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
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights