UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/683,024
`
`08/22/2017
`
`Hiroshi YAHATA
`
`P53191
`
`4863
`
`04/27/2018
`7590
`125331
`Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation
`of America c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VIRGINIA 20191
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ZHAO, DAQUAN
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2484
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/27/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`gbp atent @ gbp atent.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/683,024
`Examiner
`DAQUAN ZHAO
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAHATA et al.
`Art Unit
`2484
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 8/22/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`l is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) l is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 8/22/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)E] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some”
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1..
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datem.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180424
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,024
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`2.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims is directed to a judicial
`
`exception (i.e.an abstract) without significantly more.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is directed to an abstract of “a recording medium, in whioh ere recorded
`
`at ieeet one video stream that is encoded video information, and a management
`
`information iite indicating attributes reiating to the entire recording medium, wherein the
`
`management information fiie inoiudee attribute intormation indicating whether or not, for
`
`each of typee 0? dynamic range oi inrninanee, at ieast one or more ntayiiete ueing a
`
`predetermined type among the types; are inottided”, which is similar to “method for
`
`recording, transmitting and administering digital images” in TLl Communications LLC V
`
`AV Automotive LLC, (Fed Cir. May 17, 2016); “encoding and decoding image data” in
`
`Recognicorp V. Nintendo (Fed Cir, 2016-1499, 4/28/2017).
`
`In step two of the Alice inquiry, we search for an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to
`
`‘transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application?” McFiO, 837 F.3d at
`
`1312 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). To save a patent at step two, an inventive
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,024
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 3
`
`concept must be evident in the claims. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (“[Wje must
`
`examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
`
`concept.”’ (emphasis added)); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
`
`1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted
`
`Claims themselves”). For the instant claim, there’s no additional element in the claim to
`
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
`
`Also for claim 1, "In the start of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a
`
`medium for transmitting computer instruction and thus, in the absence of any evidence
`
`to the contrary and give the broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a
`
`“computer readable medium' covers a signal per se." In order to overcome the 35
`
`U.S.C. 101 rejection, the "readable medium" should be changed to "non-transitory
`
`readable medium".
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being described by Newton et
`
`al (US 2014/0125696).
`
`For claim 1, Newton et al teach a recording medium, in which are recorded
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,024
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 4
`
`at ieaet one video Stream that ie eneeded videe interrnatien reg, paragraphs 44
`
`45, ), and
`
`a management inierrnatien tiie indicating attributes reiating tn the entire recerding
`
`medium (eg. paragraph 70, “PiayLiet tile”),
`
`wherein the management inierntatien tite ineiudee attribute intermatien indicating
`
`whether er net, rer each of types at dynamic: range at iuminanee, at ieaet one er mere
`
`piayiiete using a predetermined type ameng the typee are inciuded (eg. paragraph 70,
`
`“The HDR vereien indicatien may be ineiuded in exteneion data ei‘ eg. a PiayLiet iiie
`
`and may eentain a Sink to the eerreepending LDR versien”).
`
`Double Parenting
`
`5.
`
`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,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,024
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 5
`
`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/AlA/25, or PTO/AlA/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-l.jsp.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/683,038 (Co-Pending).
`
`Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not distinct from each other
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,024
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 6
`
`because the instant application claims broader in every aspect than the patent claim
`
`and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
`
`For claim 1 of the instant Applicant, claim 1 of the Co-Pending Application
`
`comprises all the limitation of claim 1 of the instant Application.
`
`Conclusion
`
`6.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure.
`
`Yamamoto et al (US 2016/0100183, paragraph 351)
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-
`
`1119 or email daquan.zhao1@uspto.gov.
`
`lf attempts to reach the examiner by
`
`telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tran Thai Q, can be reached on
`
`(571)272-7382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or
`
`proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
`
`