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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a continuation application in which claims 1-19 of the instant application are pending and ready for examination.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,252. 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 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,252, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-19 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.
More specifically, independent claims 1, 7, and 12 and of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,252 disclose all the elements and steps of respective independent claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the respective independent claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misra (US 2024/0098259).
As to claim 7, Misra teaches a video decoding method comprising:
obtaining a bitstream of an image, wherein the image includes a first chrominance component and a second chrominance component (see FIGs. 6-7 for video encoding portion and FIGs. 17-18 for video decoding portion as well as [0166]),
a first syntax element is configured to indicate whether the first chrominance component is filtered by adaptive loop filtering (ALF), and a second syntax element is configured to indicate whether the second chrominance component is filtered by the ALF (see TABLE 15, TABLE 16, and TABLE 17 on pages 31-34; see [0360], [0380]-[0389], [0406]-[0407], [0422], and [0439]-[0441] for the chroma ALF syntax elements; [0439] particularly states that slice_alf_chroma_idc being equal to 1 indicates that the adaptive loop filter is applied to the Cb color component and slice_alf_chroma_idc being equal to 2 indicates that the adaptive loop filter is applied to the Cr color component; in other words, the first syntax element indicating whether the Cb component is ALF filtered corresponds to the slice_alf_chroma_idc syntax element having a value of 1 while the second syntax element indicating whether the Cr component nis ALF filtered corresponds to the slice_alf_chroma_idc syntax element having a value of 2);
parsing the bitstream to obtain the first syntax element and the second syntax element; and determining, according to the first syntax element and the second syntax element, whether the first chrominance component and the second chrominance component of the image are filtered using the ALF, the ALF being not a cross-component ALF (CC-ALF) filter (see TABLE 15, TABLE 16, and TABLE 17 on pages 31-34; see [0360], [0380]-[0389], [0406]-[0407], [0422], and [0439]-[0441] for the chroma ALF syntax elements; see FIGs. 6-7 for video encoding portion and FIGs. 17-18 for video decoding portion as well as [0166]).
As to claims 1 and 14, the aforementioned claims are rejected similarly as claim 7.
As to claims 2, 8, and 15, Misra further teaches wherein: in the bitstream, for each of the first chrominance component and the second chrominance component, a first identifier is configured in a corresponding syntax element of an image block level in the bitstream to indicate whether the chrominance component is filtered using the ALF, and a second identifier is configured to indicate the ALF filter used by the chrominance component in response to the first identifier indicating that the chrominance component is filtered using the ALF (see TABLE 15, TABLE 16, and TABLE 17 on pages 31-34; see [0360], [0380]-[0389], [0406]-[0407], [0422], and [0439]-[0441] for the chroma ALF syntax elements; the first identifier corresponds to the slice_alf_chroma_idc syntax element while the second identifier corresponds to the slice_alf_aps_id_chroma syntax element referring to the signaled ALF filters of the corresponding chroma component of the slice with the alf_chroma_filter_signal_flag syntax element being equal to 1).
As to claims 3, 10, and 16, Misra further teaches wherein the image block level is a coding tree unit (CTU) level (see TABLE 15, TABLE 16, and TABLE 17 on pages 31-34; see [0360], [0380]-[0389], [0406]-[0407], [0422], and [0439]-[0441] for the chroma ALF syntax elements).
As to claims 4, 11, and 17, Misra further teaches wherein: the first identifier is encoded in a context manner ([0077] and [0312]).
As to claims 5, 12, and 18, Misra further teaches wherein: the second identifier is encoded in a truncated unary manner ([0077] and [0312]).
As to claims 6, 13, and 19, Misra further teaches wherein: in the bitstream, in response to the first syntax element indicating that the first chrominance component is filtered using the ALF, a first indicator is configured to indicate the ALF filter used by the first chrominance component; or in the bitstream, in response to the second syntax element indicating that the second chrominance component is filtered using the ALF, a second indicator is configured to indicate the ALF filter used by the second chrominance component (see TABLE 15, TABLE 16, and TABLE 17 on pages 31-34; see [0360], [0380]-[0389], [0406]-[0407], [0422], and [0439]-[0441] for the chroma ALF syntax elements; the first identifier corresponds to the slice_alf_chroma_idc syntax element while the second identifier corresponds to the slice_alf_aps_id_chroma syntax element referring to the signaled ALF filters of the corresponding chroma component of the slice with the alf_chroma_filter_signal_flag syntax element being equal to 1).
As to claim 9, Misra further teaches wherein parsing the bitstream to obtain the first syntax element and the second syntax element includes at least one of: parsing the bitstream in a context manner to obtain the first identifier corresponding to the first chrominance component and the first identifier corresponding to the second chrominance component of the image from the bitstream; or parsing the bitstream in a truncated unary manner to obtain the second identifier corresponding to the first chrominance component and the second identifier corresponding to the second chrominance component of the image (see TABLE 15, TABLE 16, and TABLE 17 on pages 31-34; see [0360], [0380]-[0389], [0406]-[0407], [0422], and [0439]-[0441] for the chroma ALF syntax elements; the first identifier corresponds to the slice_alf_chroma_idc syntax element while the second identifier corresponds to the slice_alf_aps_id_chroma syntax element referring to the signaled ALF filters of the corresponding chroma component of the slice with the alf_chroma_filter_signal_flag syntax element being equal to 1; see [0077] and [0312] for context and/or truncated unary coding).
Conclusion
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