DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 18/633,167 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting co-pending application claim 1. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting co-pending application claim is that the conflicting co-pending application claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 12, and 16 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 2025/0330581, hereafter Zhang).
As per claim 1, Zhang discloses a method of encoding or decoding video data, the method comprising:
selecting a group of blocks based on probing samples determined from pixels that are proximate to the blocks in the group of blocks and current probing samples determined from pixels that are proximate to a current block (¶ 83);
fusing the blocks in the group of blocks to generate a prediction signal (¶ 83 84, and 286); and
encoding or decoding the current block based on the prediction signal (¶ 83 and 84).
As per claim 5, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the probing samples determined from the pixels that are proximate to the blocks in the group of blocks comprise probing samples determined from pixels that are immediately adjacent to the blocks in the group of blocks (¶ 89 and 228).
As per claim 6, Zhang discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the pixels that are immediately adjacent to the blocks in the group of blocks comprises a first line of pixels having a y-coordinate that is one less than a y-coordinate of a top line of the group of blocks, or a second line of pixels having a x-coordinate that is one less than a x-coordinate of a left column of the group of blocks (¶ 89 and 228).
As per claim 7, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the probing samples determined from the pixels that are proximate to the blocks in the group of blocks comprise probing samples determined from pixels that are not immediately adjacent to the blocks in the group of blocks (¶ 89 and 228).
As per claim 8, the method of claim 7, wherein the pixels that are not immediately adjacent to the blocks in the group of blocks comprise a first line of pixels having a y-coordinate that is two or more less than a y-coordinate of a top line of the group of blocks, or a second line of pixels having a x-coordinate that is two or more less than a x-coordinate of a left column of the group of blocks.
As per claim 9, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein fusing the blocks in the group of blocks comprises:
determining a respective weight for each pixel in at least one block of the group of blocks based on a respective location of each pixel; and fusing the blocks based on the respective weight for each pixel in at least one block of the group of blocks (¶ 286; For example, after determining the weight values of the multiple matching blocks, the decoder performs summation on the matching blocks multiplied by the respective weight values to obtain the target prediction block. Alternatively, after determining the weight values of the multiple matching blocks, the decoder performs summation on the matching blocks multiplied by the respective weight values to obtain a fusion block, and processes the obtained fusion block to obtain the target prediction block.).
As per claim 10, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein encoding or decoding the current block comprises decoding the current block, wherein decoding the current block comprises:
determining, based on information signaled in a bitstream, residual values indicative of a difference between the current block and the prediction signal; and adding the residual values to the prediction signal to reconstruct the current block (¶ 85 and 86; ¶ 85: A similarity degree between the template of the current block and the template of the matching block is represented by a template error value. A smaller template error value indicates a higher similarity degree. For example, a template error value may be calculated by using a sum of absolute difference (Sum of Absolute Difference, SAD). A smaller SAD indicates that a template is more similar; ¶ 86: The encoder uses the flag cu_tmp_flag to indicate whether the current coding block uses the IntraTMP mode. ).
As per claim 11, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein encoding or decoding the current block comprises encoding the current block, wherein encoding the current block comprises:
determining residual values indicative of a difference between the current block and the prediction signal; and signaling, in a bitstream, information indicative of the residual values (¶ 85 and 86).
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487