DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
A new search has been conducted.
Double Patenting
4. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 and 2 of the pending Application for Patent No. 18/586,214 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The provisional nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained below;
Examiner’s Reasoning for the provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Instant Application vs. Conflicting Patent - claim analysis
Specifically, all the components of the method of the instant application claim 1, are defined and encompass the limitations claimed by the conflicting pending application.
The difference between the instant application at claim 1 and the pending application claim 1 lies in the fact that the instant claim includes an “OR” alternative limiting element, reciting (in bold); “ performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area. “, but rather being similar with the pending application claiming at 1; “performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer.”, which would have been obvious in view of the skilled artisan.
Furthermore, the amended instant claim 1, now reads into the constraints determined at claim 2 of the conflicting application for patent, by addressing the buffer size being dependent on the width and height of the buffer for the IIBC reference area being larger than the width and height of the picture associated with the video unit or picture.
Thus, the invention of claim 1 and 2 of in the conflicting pending application for patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application claim 1.
It has been held by the Court that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the conflicting pending application for patent, it is deemed patentably indistinct from the named claim 1 of the conflicting patent, as detailed below.
The remaining claims are also rejected under this statute for reciting analogous subject matter by a different syntax.
The Obviousness Double Patenting (ODP) rejection is therefore maintained.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu’540 Jizheng et al., (hereinafter Xu’540) (WO 2020/156540A1) published 06 August 2020 in view of Xu Jizheng et al., (hereinafter Xu’544) WO 2020/156544 A1).
Re Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 discloses, a method of video processing (Abstract Par.[57]), comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (Abstract Par.[57]), a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer (a reference buffer size is set according to a width and height (W,H) Par.[0109, 0293] or an IBC reference area based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit ( a reference area nMxnM is used for the CTU size MxM Par.[0256-0258]), the video unit being applied with an IBC mode (the nMxnM reference area is determined when the current block uses IBC mode, Par.[0258] Fig.2); and
performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (performing a conversion/coding of the current block based on either the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area, Fig.18, Par.[0042, 0307]),
wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met (the buffer size is defined according to the CTU size, where MxN notations correspond with the CTU size WxH according to Par.[0109] (1) (a….f), or as adapted for different profiles, levels, tiers etc., at Par.[0109] (2…7)):
a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer width is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=W, at Par.[0109] (1) (g)(j)(l)(o), or as extended to different mW sizes and partitions of CTU, etc.), or
a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer height is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or as extended to different nH sizes and partitions of the CTU, etc.).
Xu’544 also teaches,
determining, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit,
a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or
an IBC reference area based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and
performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (Par.[0012-0013, 0015-0017 based on the reference buffer Par.[0036] Fig.12),
It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled in the art to combine the similar arts of Xu’540 and Xu’544 in where Xu’540 claiming improved Versatile Video Coding additions at (Par.[0060]) in order to emphasize specific common methods of implementing the reference buffer indicating various buffer sizes according to CTU size constraints and achieving similar buffer management techniques found in Xu’544 (Par.[0059]) and according to the claimed matter such combined art be found predictable.
Re Claim 2. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a picture associated with the video unit, and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that [[a]]the width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is the (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer width is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=W, at Par.[0109] (1) (g)(j)(l)(o), or as extended to different mW sizes and partitions of the picture of reference samples, at Par.[0109] (3), or the reconstructed pictures before or after filtering [0109] ((4), (5), (6) etc.).
Xu’544 teaches these limitations at (Par.[0109] (1)-)6)).
Re Claim 3. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a coding tree unit (CTU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that the m times of the (where the first size parameter being the positive integer m is factoring the Width (M) of the CTU, Par.[0109](1)(g) and defined at [0109](1)(m) for M=mW and/or at [0109](1)(n)(ii to iv), where m= 4 =22 , the width of CTU = 64, etc.) .
Xu’544 teaches the same (Par.[0109](1)(g) and defined at [0109](1)(m) for M=mW and/or at [0109](1)(n)(ii to iv), where m= 4 =22 where m, is defined as a positive integer).
Re Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 3,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein m is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2m times of the width of the CTU is not smaller than the the picture (the CTU is not smaller than the width of the picture when M=W at [0109](1)(l)).
Re Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining thathe width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is 2m times of a width of the VPDU, wherein m is a positive integer (the IBC buffer size is a multiple of 2, i.e., 2m for the VDPU according to the Par.[0109](3)( f)).
Re Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 5,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein m is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2m times of the width of the VPDU is not smaller than the the picture (performed according to the buffer size is adaptively being changed based on the current block or VPDU’s location, at Alternative buffer combination” Par.[0109] (42) and “Virtual IBC Buffer” Par.[0109](44)(a…. c)).
Re Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a picture associated with the video unit, and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that the height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is(the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer height is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or as extended to different nH sizes and partitions of the CTU, etc.).
Re Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a coding tree unit (CTU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that the n times of a height of the CTU, wherein n is a positive integer, wherein n is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2n times of the height of the CTU is not smaller than the the picture (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer height (H) is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or for a multiple of 2n height multiplier for H sizes, [0109](l)(m)(n) where N=2n and N=nH i.e., the height or as extended to different nH sizes and partitions of the CTU, etc.).
Re Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that the height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is 2n times of a height of the VPDU, wherein n is a positive integer, wherein n is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2" times of the height of the VPDU is not smaller than the height of the picture (the same as height (H) being not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or for a multiple of 2n height multiplier for H sizes, [0109](l)(m)(n) where N=2n and N=nH i.e., the height or as extended to different nH sizes).
Re Claim 10. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 8,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein n is 2 (as would be implicitly determined from Par.[0109](3)(l)(m) where the N=nH may be n=2 as a positive integer e.g., for H=128 height size).
Re Claim 11. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein a set of blocks included in the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area of the video unit is determined (the IBC buffer size and/or the reference area size is determined according to the various values in Par.[0109](1)(a… o), Par.[0109](3)(a… f)) .
Re Claim 12. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have smaller horizontal index than a current CTU in a current CTU row within a current slice associated with the video unit (the current CTU 64x64 size (i.e., the H) being smaller than the current slice area from which it is selected, the respective index would have been within a smaller row/horizontal range i.e., the associated reference area being (i.e., nH size), at least in Figs.8 to 9 and Figs.12 to 14, would be smaller as well, Par.[0293-0294]).
Re Claim 13. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have smaller horizontal index than a current CTU in a current CTU row within a current tile associated with the video unit (the same description referenced to slice at claim 12 is valid for the tile size partitions).
Re Claim 14. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have smaller horizontal index than a current CTU in a current CTU row within a current subpicture associated with the video unit (similarly hence the sub-picture is smaller than the video unit picture derived from, its horizontal index would be smaller, per rationale at claim 12) .
Re Claim 15. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein if a horizontal index of a current CTU is x, the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises a set of CTUs that have horizonal index no smaller than x in a CTU row above a current CTU which is within at least one of: a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture (the same rationale at claim 12 is valid in its opposite consideration form of expression for the a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture).
Re Claim 16. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein if a horizontal index of a current CTU is x, the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have horizonal index larger than x in a CTU row above a current CTU which is within at least one of: a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture (the same rationale at claim 12 as being larger is valid in its opposite consideration form of expression for a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture).
Re Claim 17. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose, the method of claims 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (the coding process is represented as an encoder or decoder side Par.[0022], encoder at [0099] or claim 33 and decoder at claim 34).
Re Claim 18. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose,
Xu’540 teaches about, an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non- transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (the processor Par.[0280] and non-transitory storage, Par.[0364]), cause the processor to:
determine, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (Abstract Par.[57]), a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer (a reference buffer size is set according to a width and height (W,H) Par.[0109, 0293]) or an IBC reference area based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit (a reference area nMxnM is used for the CTU size MxM Par.[0256-0258]), the video unit being applied with an IBC mode (the nMxnM reference area is determined when the current block uses IBC mode, Par.[0258] Fig.2); and
perform the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (performing a conversion/coding of the current block based on either the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area, Fig.18, Par.[0042, 0307]).
Xu’544 teaches this limitation at (the processor Par.[0280] and non-transitory storage, Par.[0359]).
Re Claim 19. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose,
Xu’540 teaches about, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by processor, Par.[0364]) that cause a processor to: determine, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or an IBC reference area based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and perform the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (implementing each and every limitation of the apparatus claim 18).
Xu’544 teaches the (non-transitory storage, Par.[0359]).
Re Claim 20. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 disclose,
Xu’540 teaches about, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by processor, Par.[0364], wherein the method comprises:
determining a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or an IBC reference area based on a second size parameter of a region associated with a video unit of the video, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and
generating a bitstream of the video unit based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (performing each and every limitation of the method of claim 1).
Xu’544 teaches the (non-transitory storage, Par.[0359]).
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DAVE J CZEKAJ. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487