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 .
Detailed Action
This office Action is in response to an application filed on 03/27/2026, which is a CON of 18/949,072 11/15/2024, which is a CON of 18/498,597 10/31/2023 PAT 12231610, which is a CON of 18/314,965 05/10/2023 PAT 11902668, which is a CON of 17/579,225 01/19/2022 PAT 11696035, which is a CON of 17/027,154 09/21/2020 PAT 11483476, which is a CON of 16/372,287 04/01/2019 ABN, which is a CON of PCT/KR2017/011138 10/10/2017, in which claims 1-7 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0127887 10/04/2016, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0129386 10/06/2016, and, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2017-0090616 07/17/2017. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 05/04/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and similar dependent claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Copending Application APP 19/575,970. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Copending Application and is covered by the Application since the Application and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Copending Application 19/575,970
Instant Application:-19/631,412
1. An image decoding method, comprising: generating a prediction block by predicting a current block in a picture; generating a residual block of the current block from a bitstream; decoding a picture including the current block based on the residual block and prediction block; obtaining, from the bitstream, rearrangement information related to rearranging sub-regions in the picture; and rearranging the sub-regions based on the rearrangement information, wherein the rearrangement information includes rearrangement type information indicating a rearrangement type, independent decoding information for the sub-regions, and information related to positions of the sub-regions, and wherein the bitstream includes projection information for mapping the picture to a three-dimensional coordinate system.
1. an image decoding method, comprising: obtaining, from a bitstream, rearrangement information related to rearranging sub-regions in a picture; and rearranging the sub-regions based on the rearrangement information, wherein the rearrangement information includes rearrangement type information indicating a rearrangement type and independent decoding information for the sub-regions, and wherein the bitstream includes projection information for mapping the picture to a three-dimensional coordinate system.
As demonstrated, the claim of Copending Application 19/630,717 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/575,970. Similar rejections can be presented for 19/630,717, 19/573,614, 19/569,342, 19/569,365.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-5 refer to "An Image decoding method”, Claim 6 refers to "An image encoding method”, and Claim 7 refers to "A method for transmitting a bitstream”. Claims 6-7 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-5, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-5, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte et al. (US 20170251204 A1), hereinafter Gupte, in view of Kajikawa et al. (US 20100001997 A1), hereinafter Kajikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Gupte discloses an image decoding method, comprising (Abstract): obtaining, from a bitstream, rearrangement information related to sub-regions in a picture (Fig. 1); indicating a type and independent decoding information for the sub-regions (Fig. 3B), and wherein the bitstream includes projection information for mapping the picture to a three-dimensional coordinate system ([0083], [0112]).
Gupte discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Gupte does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section rearrangement information, rearranging sub-regions; and rearranging the sub-regions based on the rearrangement information, wherein the rearrangement information includes rearrangement type information.
However, Kajikawa from the same or similar endeavor teaches rearrangement information, rearranging sub-regions; and rearranging the sub-regions based on the rearrangement information, wherein the rearrangement information includes rearrangement type information ([0202]-[0204]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupte to incorporate the teachings of Kajikawa to reduce distortion for a display (Kajikawa, [0002]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Gupte in view of Kajikawa discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the rearrangement type includes a type in which the sub-sub-regions are rearranged side-by-bide (Gupte, Fig. 3B, [0083], [0112], Kajikawa, [0202]-[0204]).
Regarding claim 3, Gupte in view of Kajikawa discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the rearrangement type includes a type in which the sub-sub-regions are rearranged in a top-bottom (Gupte, Fig. 3B, [0083], [0112], Kajikawa, [0202]-[0204]).
Regarding claim 4, Gupte in view of Kajikawa discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the independent decoding information indicates whether a certain sub-region is referred to for decoding of another sub-region among the sub-regions (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 5, Gupte in view of Kajikawa discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the independent decoding information is obtained for each of the sub-regions (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 6-7, See Examiner’s Note. Mihcak et al. (Us 20070092103 A1), [0167], [0189]-[0191].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights