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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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 1, 8, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10, 18 and 24, 20 and 27 of U.S. Patent No.11363306 (16836271), in view of US 20180376153 A1-Gokhale et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Gok”).
Referring to claims 1, 8, and 15, taking claim 1 as exemplary, although Conflicting Patent Application 11363306 (16836271), does not explicitly disclose what’s claimed in Instant Application-18461386, determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system, wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit.
However, Gok discloses determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system ([0255], discloses determining coding modes for a block.is based on rate distortion; [0258], discloses that rate distortion depends on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the block. Therefore, determining a coding mode is dependent on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the bloc, which is information indicating characteristics of a human visual system), wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit ([0068], [0344])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the Instant Application-18461386 to combine the teachings of Gok. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system, wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit. to provide improved coding results ([0344], Gok).
All dependent claims are rejected based on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting based on the dependent claims of Conflicting Patent Application 11363306 (16836271).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11800156 (17663477), in view of US 20180376153 A1-Gokhale et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Gok”).
Referring to claims 1, 8, and 15, taking claim 1 as exemplary, although Conflicting Patent Application 11800156 (17663477), does not explicitly disclose what’s claimed in Instant Application-18461386, determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system, wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit.
However, Gok discloses determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system ([0255], discloses determin coding modes for a block.is based on rate distortion; [0258], discloses that rate distortion depends on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the block. Therefore, determining a coding mode is dependent on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the bloc, which is information indicating characteristics of a human visual system), wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit ([0068], [0344])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the Instant Application-18461386 to combine the teachings of Gok. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system, wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit. to provide improved coding results ([0344], Gok).
All dependent claims are rejected based on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting based on the dependent claims of Conflicting Patent Application 11800156 (17663477).
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, 7-12, 14-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140050263 A1-Kim, in view of US 20180376153 A1-Gokhale et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Gok”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method (Fig. 5) comprising:
determining, for at least each of two or more prediction units associated with a coding unit partitioned from a frame ([0049], wherein splitting CUs into 4 Pus), and based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system ([0021], coding unit hierarchy is interpreted as an amount and density of details (information indicating characteristics of human visual system) within the coding unit), a coding mode that minimizes distortion in an encoded bitstream associated with the coding unit ([0021], minimizes distortion; [0037-0039]) ;
determining, based on the determined coding mode, a residual signal comprising a difference between at least each of the two or more prediction units and at least each of one or more corresponding prediction areas in the frame ([0042], wherein each residual PU is determined by the difference of a predicted PU and original PU; and
causing output of the encoded bitstream comprising the residual signal ([0046], output estimated residual information).
Kim fails to disclose determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system, wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gok discloses determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system ([0255], discloses determining coding modes for a block.is based on rate distortion; [0258], discloses that rate distortion depends on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the block. Therefore, determining a coding mode is dependent on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the bloc, which is information indicating characteristics of a human visual system), wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit ([0068], [0344])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the Instant Application-18461386 to combine the teachings of Gok. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement determining a coding mode based on information indicating characteristics of a human visual system, wherein the characteristics are indicative of perceptual data associated with coding unit. to provide improved coding results ([0344], Gok).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the coding mode comprises minimizing a cost function based on the two or more prediction units ([0021], minimizes distortion; [0037-0039]; ([0049], wherein splitting CUs into 4 Pus).
Regarding claim 3, Gok discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the cost function comprises a Lagrangian multiplier determined based on the information indicating characteristics of the human visual system ([0252], lagrange multiplier; 0258], discloses that rate distortion that includes the langrage multiplier depends on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the block).
Regarding claim 4, Gok discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the Lagrangian multiplier varies for each of the two or more prediction units ([0081], wherein adaptive means varies)
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises generating a distortion decoder picture buffer comprising information indicating a map of pixel differences between encoded frames in the encoded bitstream ([0047).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Gok discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the characteristics of the human visual system comprise at least one of: a contrast sensitivity function for a content type, a viewing condition, a spatial resolution of the video data, an amount and density of details within the coding unit, or a speed of motion or optical flow (([0021], coding unit hierarchy is interpreted as an amount and density of details within the coding unit; GOK, [0383]).
Regarding claim 8, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 15, wherein a device ([0058]) and processor ([058])
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of GOK discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the determining the coding mode comprises minimizing a cost function based on the two or more prediction units ([0021], minimizes distortion; [0037-0039]; ([0049], wherein splitting CUs into 4 Pus), wherein the cost function comprises a Lagrangian multiplier determined based on the information indicating characteristics of the human visual system (GOK, [0252], lagrange multiplier; Gok 0258], discloses that rate distortion that includes the langrage multiplier depends on psychovisual and persistence sensitivity value (S.sub.ppm) for the block).
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses the device of claim 15, wherein determining the coding mode comprises determining a respective coding mode for each of the two or more prediction units (wherein each of the intra prediction modes (coding modes) of the prediction units are tested).
Regarding claim 22, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 21 and are applicable for claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 21 and are applicable for claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights