DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 .
Priority
Applicant has four different Provisional’s associated with this instant application. Based on the examiner’s review, only the most recent provisional contains support for the claimed equation. Therefore, this application has an effective filing date of 07-02-2018.
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 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 36 recites a product by process claim (i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by). A bit stream generated by, is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(IIl). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by the Chen reference as shown below in the office action.
Claims 22, 25-27, 30-32, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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. The dependent claims teach away from the independent claim. For example, independent claim 21 states “obtaining a direct current (DC) value for prediction of the current block based on a reference sample set comprising at least some of the reference samples corresponding to the first side and the reference samples corresponding to the second side,” This states that the DC value is calculated using reference samples from both sides, wherein one side uses some of the reference samples. However, the dependent claims are now teaching away from this and stating that “reference sample set comprises reference samples corresponding to any one side of the first/second side” (claim 22), obtaining the DC value based on the reference sample set comprising the reference samples corresponding to the first side (claim 25), obtaining the DC value corresponding to the first side (claim 26) and obtaining the DC value based on a length of a longer side (claim 27). Please clarify the claim language.
Claim 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 24 states that the reference sample set comprises remaining reference samples. However, this is inherent due to the language “excluding” in the independent claims. Furthermore, these remaining reference samples are not even being utilized in terms of utility. Therefore, it is unclear what these dependent claims are achieving.
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 21-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,470.
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.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20110099594).
Regarding claim 36, Chen discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by: [See Chen [0015] Storing video data after it has been encoded. Also, see 0031, Computer-readable storage medium comprising stored video data.]
Regarding claim 37, see examiners rejection for claim 36 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 37.
Regarding claim 38, see examiners rejection for claim 36 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 38.
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 21-24, 28-30, 33-34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (herein after will be referred to as Chen) (US 20180131962) in view of Lee (US 20190238835).
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses a video signal processing method comprising:
obtaining reference samples corresponding to a first side of a current block and reference samples corresponding to a second side thereof based on reconstructed samples around the current block, [See Chen [0053] DC predictor value is calculated as the average of the DC predictor value of above samples and the DC predictor value of the left samples.]
wherein a length of the first side corresponding to a height of the current block and a length of the second side corresponding to a width of the current block are different from each other; [See Chen [0049] When the block is non-square.]
obtaining a direct current (DC) value for prediction of the current block based on a reference sample set comprising at least some of the reference samples corresponding to the first side and the reference samples corresponding to the second side, [See Chen [0049] Excluding samples for DC calculation. Reference samples include short side and long side of a block.]
wherein the reference sample set comprises 2n reference samples, by excluding reference samples corresponding to a shorter side length from all of the reference samples corresponding to the first side and all of the reference samples corresponding to the second side, [See Chen [0052] The number of samples used to calculate the DC value is a power of 2 and removed samples are any subset of neighboring pixels (i.e. this includes the longer side as shown in Figs. 8-9 but also the shorter side).]
reconstructing the current block based on the DC value. [See Chen [0049] Excluding samples for DC calculation. Reference samples include short side and long side of a block.]
Chen does not explicitly disclose
wherein when the length of the first side is greater than the length of the second side, the reference samples corresponding to the first side are determined based on a line spaced apart by a specific interval from the first side indicated by a reference line index, and
wherein when the length of the second side is greater than the length of the first side, the reference samples corresponding to the second side are determined based on a line spaced apart by the specific interval from the second side indicated by the reference line index; and
However, Lee does disclose
wherein when the length of the first side is greater than the length of the second side, the reference samples corresponding to the first side are determined based on a line spaced apart by a specific interval from the first side indicated by a reference line index, and [See Lee [0241] Decode from a bitstream, index information specifying at least one of a plurality of reference lines. Also, see 0204, 0241 and 0244, For DC mode, a prediction signal is generated using the reference samples included in the reference line. Also, see 0226-0227, When a current block is non-square, a number of reference samples included in a reference line is determined according to horizontal and vertical lengths of a current block.]
wherein when the length of the second side is greater than the length of the first side, the reference samples corresponding to the second side are determined based on a line spaced apart by the specific interval from the second side indicated by the reference line index; and [See Lee [0241] Decode from a bitstream, index information specifying at least one of a plurality of reference lines. Also, see 0204, 0241 and 0244, For DC mode, a prediction signal is generated using the reference samples included in the reference line. Also, see 0226-0227, When a current block is non-square, a number of reference samples included in a reference line is determined according to horizontal and vertical lengths of a current block.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Chen to add the teachings of Lee, in order to signal in the bitstream index information specifying reference line information. Chen discloses in [0050 and Fig. 7] that additional samples come from multiple reference lines. It is obvious that this information will be included in the bitstream using obvious MRL techniques.
Regarding claim 22, Chen (modified by Lee) disclose the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Chen discloses
wherein the reference sample set comprises reference samples corresponding to any one side of the first side and the second side of the current block. [See Chen [Claim 13 or 14] using only neighboring reconstructed samples of a long side or short side.]
Regarding claim 23, Chen (modified by Lee) disclose the method of claim 22. Furthermore, Chen discloses
wherein the reference sample set comprises reference samples corresponding to a longer side of the first side and the second side. [See Chen [Claim 13 or 14] using only neighboring reconstructed samples of a long side or short side.]
Regarding claim 24, Chen (modified by Lee) disclose the method of claim 22. Furthermore, Chen discloses
wherein the reference sample set comprises remaining reference samples, excluding reference samples corresponding to the shorter side of the first side and the second side from the reference samples corresponding to the first side and the reference samples corresponding to the second side. [See Chen [0049] Excluding samples for DC calculation (inherent that there will be remaining reference samples not used). Reference samples include short side and long side of a block.]
Regarding claim 28, Chen (modified by Lee) disclose the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Chen discloses
wherein obtaining the DC value comprises: performing a shift operation on a sum of sample values of reference samples include in the reference sample set by a shift parameter determined based on a number of reference samples in the reference sample set. [See Chen [0049] The process of calculating the average is done by a shift operation instead of a division operation. Also, see 0055, excluding samples such that the power of 2 is achieved and the shift operation is performed.]
Regarding claim 29, see examiners rejection for claim 21 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, see examiners rejection for claim 23 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 30.
Regarding claim 33, see examiners rejection for claim 21 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, see examiners rejection for claim 24 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 34.
Regarding claim 36, see examiners rejection for claim 21 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, see examiners rejection for claim 23 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 37.
Regarding claim 38, see examiners rejection for claim 28 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 38.
Claims 25-27, 31-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20180131962) in view of Lee (US 20190238835) and in further view of Drugeon et al. (herein after will be referred to as Drugeon) (US 20200195955).
Regarding claim 25, Chen (modified by Lee) disclose the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Chen does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: comparing the length of the first side with the length of the second side; and if the length of the first side is greater than the length of the second side as a result of the comparison, obtaining the DC value based on the reference sample set comprising the reference samples corresponding to the first side.
However, Drugeon does disclose
further comprising: comparing the length of the first side with the length of the second side; and if the length of the first side is greater than the length of the second side as a result of the comparison, obtaining the DC value based on the reference sample set comprising the reference samples corresponding to the first side. [See Drugeon [Fig. 15] Reference samples correspond to only one side for DC calculation. Also, see 0311, comparison between W and H.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Chen (modified by Lee) to add the teachings of Drugeon, in order to perform a comparison to determine if the non-square block in Chen is vertical or horizontal.
Regarding claim 26, Chen (modified by Lee and Drugeon) disclose the method of claim 25. Furthermore, Chen does not explicitly disclose
wherein obtaining the DC value comprises obtaining the DC value based on an average of the reference samples corresponding to the first side if the length of the first side is greater than the length of the second side.
However, Drugeon does disclose
wherein obtaining the DC value comprises obtaining the DC value based on an average of the reference samples corresponding to the first side if the length of the first side is greater than the length of the second side. [See Drugeon [Fig. 15] Reference samples correspond to only one side for DC calculation.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 25.
Regarding claim 27, Chen (modified by Lee and Drugeon) disclose the method of claim 25. Furthermore, Chen does not explicitly disclose
wherein obtaining the DC value comprises obtaining the DC value based on a length of a longer side of the first side and the second side as a result of the comparison.
However, Drugeon does disclose
wherein obtaining the DC value comprises obtaining the DC value based on a length of a longer side of the first side and the second side as a result of the comparison. [See Drugeon [Fig. 15] Reference samples correspond to only one side for DC calculation.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 25.
Regarding claim 31, see examiners rejection for claim 25 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, see examiners rejection for claim 26 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 32.
Regarding claim 35, see examiners rejection for claim 26 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 35.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Filippov et al. (US 20210099730) – However, Prov. ‘297 dated 06-06-15-2018, fails to provide support for log2 (width or height) in the claimed equation in this instant application but provides support for the overall equation.
Drugeon et al. “CE3: DC mode without divisions and modifications to intra filtering (Tests 1.3.1, 2.2.2. and 2.5.1)”, upload date of 07-02-2018, fails to qualify as prior art as its upload date is the same date of applicant’s prov. date for KR prov ‘740.
Lin et al. “Modification to DC prediction in SDIP”, 07-2011.
Qi et al. “Cross-check of JVET-K0122: CE3 related: Alternative techniques for DC mode without division”, upload date of 07-11-2018, fails to qualify as prior art.
Filippov et al. “CE3-related: Alternative techniques for DC mode without division, upload date of 07-03-2018, fails to qualify as prior art.
Kim et al. “CE3-related: DC mode with only shifter operators based on sub-sampling, upload date of 07-04-2018, fails to qualify as prior art.
Van der Auwera “Description of Core Experiment 3: Intra Prediction and Mode Coding, 04-2018.
Chen et al. (US 20180131962)
Li et al. (US 20190141318)
Liu et al. (US 20180332284)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486