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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, respectively of copending Application No. 19/410,501 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being no prediction processing is performed in the instant application. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, respectively of copending Application No. 19/410,439 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being no prediction processing is performed in the instant application. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, respectively of copending Application No. 18/410,564 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being no prediction processing is performed in the instant application. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,262. The difference between the instant application and the copending application being no prediction processing is performed in the instant application. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-7 recite the limitations “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose these limitations. Regarding the limitations “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination”, the applicant cites [0083]-[0088] and [0634]-[0636] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing this limitation (see remarks filed 7/15/2026, pg. 10, para. 1). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While [0083]-[0088] teach determining allowable transformation types based on a block size and [0634]-[0636] teach determining a partitioning scheme and an allowable partitioning depth based on a block size, neither of the cited sections teach “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination (i.e. the cited sections do not teach a first step of determining allowable transform types for a block and then determining a partitioning depth based on the determination of allowable transform types).
Claims 2-4 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Zhao et al. (Zhao’290) (US 2016/0219290).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
deriving a size of a subblock based on the partitioning information ([0048], partitioning information is used to produce blocks of desired sizes) and at least one of a size of the current block or a shape of the current block ([0021], the size of the sub block is determined based on the size of a leaf node block);
partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock ([0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the size of the sub block can not exceed a maximum or a minimal size),
performing inverse-transformation for the subblock ([0047], inverse transformation is performed);
generating a residual signal based on the inverse-transformation ([0048], a residual is generated); and
wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height (FIG. 4a, block 51 is partitioned into blocks 55 and 56 using binary partitioning; block 53 is partitioned to produce blocks 61 and 62 using binary partitioning; [0021] binary tree partitioning is applied).
Zhao is silent about determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination.
Zhao’290 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block ([0005], a subset of allowable transform types is determined); obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination ([0088], a maximum partitioning depth is determined based on an allowed transform type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao’290 into the teachings of Zhao for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses wherein, in case the current block is square, a quadtree partitioning is performed for the current block (FIG. 4a, square block 50 is partitioned to yield 4 leaf blocks 51-53).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on a predetermined index for a partitioning ([0053], partitioning flags are signaled), and
wherein, in case the current block is a 4Nx4N block (FIG. 3, block 40), the current block is not partitioned (FIG. 3, square blocks with solid lines are not furthered partitioned), or the current block is partitioned into four 2Nx2N subblocks (FIG. 4, block 51-53).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
deriving a size of a subblock based on the partitioning information ([0048], partitioning information is used to produce blocks of desired sizes) and at least one of a size of the current block or a shape of the current block ([0021], the size of the sub block is determined based on the size of a leaf node block);
partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock ([0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the size of the sub block can not exceed a maximum or a minimal size),
performing transformation for the subblock ([0049], [0058], transform is applied); and
encoding the residual signal based on the transformation ([0048], a residual is generated),
wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height (FIG. 4a, block 51 is partitioned into blocks 55 and 56 using binary partitioning; block 53 is partitioned to produce blocks 61 and 62 using binary partitioning).
Zhao is silent about determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination.
Zhao’290 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block ([0005], a subset of allowable transform types is determined); obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination ([0088], a maximum partitioning depth is determined based on an allowed transform type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao’290 into the teachings of Zhao in for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6. Zhao further discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream (FIG. 10, the bitstream is received by receiving device 14), generating a bitstream based on the encoding of the residual signal ([0005], [0118], [0157], [0160], samples (residuals) of the transform block are added to a prediction block to reconstruct a block), transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 10, the bitstream is received by receiving device 14).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Zhao et al. (Zhao’290) (US 2016/0219290), and further in view of Kang et al. (Kang) (US 2014/0286421).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Zhao’290 discloses the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Zhao in view of Zhao’290 is silent about wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode.
Kang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode ([0085], Table 1, there are different split types for each prediction mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang into the teachings of Zhao in view of Zhao’290 for more efficient video coding and decoding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (Li) (US 2017/0208336) ([0078], the depth of a node in a tree structure may refer to the length of the path (e.g., the number of splits) from the node to the root of the tree structure).
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 JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights