Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 01/29/2026.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,088,796. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,088,796, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,343. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,343, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,774,863. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,774,863, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,337. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,337, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,136,137. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,136,137, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,115. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,115, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,445,197. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,445,197, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,762. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,762, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Karczewicz (US 2012/0177118).
As to claim 5, Karczewicz teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a bitstream, wherein the bitstream comprises encoded data of a current block, encoded data of a flag having a first value, and encoded data of an index ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]);
wherein the first value of the flag indicates an intra prediction mode of the current block is in a list of most probable modes ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]),
and the index indicates where the intra prediction mode of the current block is in the list of most probable modes ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]);
wherein the flag is encoded by a regular encoding mode of context adaptive binary arithmetic coding, and the index is encoded by a bypass encoding mode of the context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (this portion of the claim is not given patentable weight).
As to claim 6, Karczewicz further teaches wherein the flag is an MPM_flag ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]; given the broadest reasonable interpretation, there is no significance given to the name of MPM_flag).
As to claim 7, Karczewicz further teaches wherein the index is an MPM_INDEX ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]; given the broadest reasonable interpretation, there is no significance given to the name of MPM_INDEX).
As to claim 8, Karczewicz further teaches wherein the list of most probable modes is based on an intra prediction mode of a block to the left of the current block and an intra prediction mode of a block above the current block ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1 and 9, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
The independent claims are particularly interpreted based on FIG. 8 of applicant’s drawings and [0030] of applicant’s specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 with regards to claim 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner maintains that Karczewicz teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a bitstream, wherein the bitstream comprises encoded data of a current block, encoded data of a flag having a first value, and encoded data of an index ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]); wherein the first value of the flag indicates an intra prediction mode of the current block is in a list of most probable modes ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]), and the index indicates where the intra prediction mode of the current block is in the list of most probable modes ([0091]-[0092] , [0099]-[0120], [0129]-[0169], and [0193]-[0203]); wherein the flag is encoded by a regular encoding mode of context adaptive binary arithmetic coding, and the index is encoded by a bypass encoding mode of the context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (this portion of the claim is not given patentable weight). In the above citations, there are clearly teachings of coded information that give indications as to a particular intra prediction mode being one of the modes that is the most probable mode for a particular context. In fact, looking at Tables 3-6, there are clearly teachings that show which intra prediction mode is a most probable mode as well as indications of which mode to be selected is a most probable mode through the use of bit data, i.e. codewords, for representation. There are also codewords being used that indicate that the selected mode is not a most probable mode. There are additionally teachings that state that the most probable intra prediction mode may be indicated using a single bit or a series of bits rather than one of the codewords. Furthermore, there are teachings of most probable intra mode indicators and intra prediction mode index tables identifiers being used. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the teachings in Karczewicz disclose encoded data of a flag having a first value, wherein the first value of the flag indicates an intra prediction mode of the current block is in a list of most probable modes.
Furthermore, despite applicant’s contention that the way the flag and index are encoded into corresponding encoded determines a corresponding part embodied in the bitstream and that the encoded data of the flag and index encoded by different encoding modes of the context adaptive binary arithmetic coding brings change to the bitstream stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, Examiner still maintains that the steps of the flag being encoded by a regular encoding mode of context adaptive binary arithmetic coding and the index being encoded by a bypass encoding mode of the context adaptive binary arithmetic coding are not given patentable weight. Applicant additionally argues that the fact that the encoded data in the bitstream cannot be decoded without knowledge of how it was obtained by encoding shows that the encoding process is a property of the bitstream. In response, Examiner maintains that there is still no functional relationship that exists between the recited steps in claim 5 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 5 because said storage medium merely serves as a support for information or data (i.e., the claimed bitstream comprising encoded data of a current block) independent of whether said recited steps are necessarily performed or not at a certain point in time (see MPEP 2111.05, Section III). In other words, there is no requirement that the aforementioned recited steps in claim 5 necessarily have to be performed because the claimed bitstream comprising encoded data merely serves as a support for information and/or data. Therefore, the recited steps in claim 5 are still not given patentable weight.
Examiner is also maintaining the above double patenting rejections since they have not yet been addressed. In view of the above reasons, Examiner maintains all rejections.
Conclusion
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 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 ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482