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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgement of Amendments
Applicants’ amendment filed 03/17/2026 overcomes the following objection(s)/rejection(s):
The double patenting rejection for claims 1-5 and 10-11 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 10-11 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.
The Examiner notes the double patenting rejection is still applicable for claims 6-9.
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 6-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,984 B2 (herein referenced as “Lee”) in view of Zhao et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20200304782 A1).
As per claim 6, Lee teaches a device comprising circuity configured to perform a method of encoding a video, the method comprising: dividing a block into a plurality of sub-blocks (claim 6, “determining whether a second transform is applied to a coding block including a plurality of sub-blocks”); determining whether a second transform is to be applied to the coding block including the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 6, “determining whether a second transform is applied to a coding block including a plurality of sub-blocks”); and if the second transform is determined to be applied, applying the second transform to at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 6, “and applying the second transform to at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks when it is determined to apply the second transform to the coding block”), wherein whether the second transform is applied to the coding block is determined by comparing a size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks with a threshold value (claim 6, wherein whether the second transform is applied to the coding block or not is determined by comparing a size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks with a threshold value”), wherein the size comprises at least one of a height and a width of the one of the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 9, “wherein when the sub-block has a size of N×4 or 4×N (N is a natural number greater than 4), the region is set as a 4×4 size”), and wherein when the size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks is less than the threshold value, the second transform is not applied to the coding block (claim 6, “and wherein when the size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks is smaller than the threshold value, it is determined not to apply the second transform to the coding block”). Lee does not explicitly disclose dividing a block into a plurality of sub-blocks either in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; wherein information indicating whether the coding block is divided into the plurality of sub-blocks is encoded into a bitstream.
However, Zhao teaches dividing a block into a plurality of sub-blocks either in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (fig. 31-fig. 33 and [0166]), wherein information indicating whether the coding block is divided into the plurality of sub-blocks is encoded into a bitstream (fig. 31-fig. 33 and [0016], claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao with Lee for the benefit of providing improved image coding.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches a device for transmitting compressed video data, the device comprising: a processor circuit configured to obtain the compressed video data (claim 11, “A device for transmitting compressed video data, the device comprising”): a processor circuit configured to obtain the compressed video data (claim 11, “a processor configured to obtain the compressed video data”); and a transmitting circuit to transmit the compressed video data (claim 11, “and a transmitting unit to transmit the compressed video data”), wherein the compressed video data is generated by an encoding method (claim 1, “wherein the compressed video data is generated by an encoding method comprising”): dividing a coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks (claim 11, “determining whether a second transform is applied to a coding block including a plurality of sub-blocks”) determining whether a second transform is to be applied to the coding block including the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 11, “determining whether a second transform is applied to a coding block including a plurality of sub-blocks”); and if a second transform is determined to be applied, applying the second transform to at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 11, “ and applying the second transform to at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks when it is determined to apply the second transform to the coding block”),wherein whether the second transform is applied to the coding block is determined by comparing a size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks with a threshold value (claim 11, “wherein whether the second transform is applied to the coding block or not is determined by comparing a size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks with a threshold value”), wherein the size comprises at least one of a height and a width of the one of the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 9, “wherein when the sub-block has a size of N×4 or 4×N (N is a natural number greater than 4), the region is set as a 4×4 size”), and wherein the size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks is less than the threshold value, the second transform is not applied to the coding block (claim 11, “and wherein when the size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks is smaller than the threshold value, it is determined not to apply the second transform to the coding block”). Lee does not explicitly disclose dividing a coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks either in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; wherein information indicating whether the coding block is divided into the plurality of sub-blocks in included in the compressed video data.
However, Zhao teaches dividing a coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks either in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (fig. 31-fig. 33 and [0166]); where information indicating whether the coding block is divided into the plurality of sub-blocks is included in the compressed video data (figs. 31-33 and [0016], claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao with Lee for the benefit of providing improved image coding.
As per claim 8, Lee teaches a method of encoding video data comprising (claim 6): dividing a coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks (claim 6, “determining whether a second transform is applied to a coding block including a plurality of sub-block”); determining whether a second transform is to be applied to the coding block including the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 6, “determining whether a second transform is applied to a coding block including a plurality of sub-block”); and if the second transform is determined to be applied, applying the second transform to at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 6, “and applying the second transform to at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks when it is determined to apply the second transform to the coding block”), wherein whether the second transform is applied to the coding block is determined by comparing a size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks with a threshold value (claim 6, “ wherein whether the second transform is applied to the coding block or not is determined by comparing a size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks with a threshold value”), wherein the size comprises at least one of a height and a width of the one of the plurality of sub-blocks (claim 9), wherein the size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks is less than the threshold value, the second transform is not applied to the coding block (claim 6 and “and wherein when the size of one of the plurality of sub-blocks is smaller than the threshold value, it is determined not to apply the second transform to the coding block”). Lee does not explicitly disclose dividing a coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks either in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; wherein information indicating whether the coding block is divided into the plurality of sub-blocks is encoded into a bitstream.
However, Zhao teaches dividing a coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks either in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (figs. 31-33; [0166]); wherein information indicating whether the coding block is divided into the plurality of sub-blocks is encoded into a bitstream (figs. 31-33; [0016] and claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao with Lee for the benefit of providing improved image coding.
As per claim 9, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium with the limitations as claim 8, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 8 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are directed towards a device comprising circuitry to perform a method of decoding a video. The closest prior art is directed towards Hsieh et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0103252 A1). Hsieh discloses the primary transform having a first size; determining whether application of a secondary transform to a sub-block of the block is allowed, wherein the sub-block comprises at least a portion of the block, wherein the secondary transform has a second size, and application of the secondary transform to the sub-block is disallowed when the first size is equal to the second size; based on the application of the secondary transform to the sub-block being allowed, applying the secondary transform to the sub-block, wherein application of the primary transform to the block and the secondary transform to the sub-block construct a residual block in a pixel domain; and reconstructing the block based on the residual block and one or more corresponding predictive block, [0007] and fig. 10. Hsieh does not explicitly disclose or render obvious a device comprising circuitry to perform a method of decoding a video, the corresponding method of decoding a video and the non-transitory computer readable medium as recited in claims 1-5 and 10-11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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 at 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights