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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
3. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,284,116 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of “determining an offset value” and “wherein N is a positive integer in a case where the bit-depth of the image is 8.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
5. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,081,804 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitation of “determining an offset value.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
6. Claim 1, 3-4, 6-7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/796,148 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and ‘148 claims is that Applicant has added the following limitation of “determining an offset value.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
7. Claim 1, 3-4, 6-7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/796,142 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘142 claims list all the features recited in claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 of the current application; also they are more narrow and therefore anticipates the instant claims.
8. Claim 1, 3-4, 6-7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/796,120 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and ‘120 claims is that Applicant has added the following limitation of “determining an offset value” and “wherein N is a positive integer in a case where the bit-depth of the image is 8.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
10. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an obtaining unit configured to… and a filtering unit configured to… in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Specification does not support individual structure for each functionality claimed unit. Specification describes these routines as software embodied in a structure of a processor, see paragraphs 0225-0235. Thus, the claimed units are interpreted to be embodied on a processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norkin (US 10,575,021) in view of English Machine Translation of ZHU (CN 106911934 A).
As per claim 1, Norkin discloses a method of deblocking filtering for an image (fig. 9), the method comprising:
obtaining a first parameter value for deblocking filtering based on a second parameter value (see fig. 13, for instance tc2=(tc+1)>>1; col. 11 lines 1-20); and
obtaining a filtered sample value by performing deblocking filtering on a sample in a block of samples (see S1 of fig. 9) by using the first parameter value (col. 14 lines 5-25 show tc2 is used in the filtering process to obtain filtered pixels), the filtered sample value being limited by a range based on the first parameter value (see S2 of fig. 9),
wherein obtaining the first parameter value(i.e. tc2) comprises:
obtaining the second parameter value based on a quantization parameter value for the block of samples (col. 11 lines 46-58, the value of the parameter tc can be obtained based on the QP value determined for or associated with the block 10 of pixels 12, 14, 16, 18. For instance, the QP value can be used to retrieve tc from a look-up table, such as Table 1);
determining an offset value (from Fig. 13, tc2 equation shows that offset value is 1); and
obtaining the first parameter value by adding the determined offset value to the second parameter value, and bit-shifting a result of the adding to right by N bits (see fig. 13, tc2=(tc+1)>>1, tc2 is obtained by adding 1 to tc and bit-shifting the result of the adding to right by 1), wherein N is a positive integer in a case where the bit-depth of the image is 8 (col. 4 lines 39-42, where BitDepth.sub.Y is the bit depth, for example 8 or 10), and wherein the offset value varies according to the bit-depth of the image (since the clipping parameter tc of the current block depends on the clipping, as taught in col. 15 lines 14-16, and the clipping depends on bit-depth, as taught in col. 4 lines 39-42; therefore, the offset that is part of the clipping parameter depends on the bit-depth).
However, Norkin does not explicitly disclose obtaining a value N using a parameter value indicating a bit-depth of the image.
In the same field of endeavor, ZHU discloses obtaining a value N using a parameter value indicating a bit-depth of the image (according to the claimed invention, the deblocking process uses right-shift operation according to bit number precision. See also page 11, the right shift values 3 or 4 are obtained based on the bit number precision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the right shift operation in the deblocking filter of Norkin, as taught by ZHU, in order to improve filtering process by adjusting the deblocking function. This rationale applies to all combination of Norkin and ZHU used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 3, Norkin discloses wherein the second parameter value is obtained from a table associating the value with the quantization parameter value (col. 11 lines 46-58, the value of the parameter tc can be obtained based on the QP value determined for or associated with the block 10 of pixels 12, 14, 16, 18. For instance, the QP value can be used to retrieve tc from a look-up table, such as Table 1).
As per claims 4 and 6, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 1 and 3 are applicable for claims 4 and 6.
As per claim 7, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 7; in addition, Norkin teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing computer-executable instructions which causes a computer to perform the claimed method (col. 25, lines 40-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights