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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 2/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chang fails to disclose at least the features of "a bitstream conformance requirement of the bitstream specifies that the minimum luma coding block size is within the range of allowable minimum luma coding block sizes having an upper limit smaller than a maximum allowable coding tree unit (CTU) size, and the upper limit being determined based on a CTU size of the coded video." The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant merely argues that Chang doesn’t disclose a bitstream conformance requirement of the bitstream specifies that the minimum luma coding block size is within the range of allowable minimum luma coding block sizes having an upper limit smaller than a maximum allowable coding tree unit (CTU) size, and the upper limit being determined based on a CTU size of the coded video." Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. According to Applicant’s publication, [0210], When a CTU size smaller than 2.sup.N+2 is signaled in a parameter set (e.g., SPS) (such as when N=4, and 2.sup.N+2=64, the CTU size of 32 luma samples is signaled), this CTU size becomes the upper limit of the minimum luma block size. Therefore, an equivalent of Embodiment A is that the minimum luma block size is limited to be within a range of 0 to min (2.sup.N+2, CTU size). The smaller value of 2.sup.N+2 and CTU size is used as the upper limit of the minimum luma block size. To be consistent with applicant’s specification, Chang discloses in table 1, wherein a bitstream conformance requirement of the bitstream specifies that the minimum luma coding block size is within the range of allowable minimum luma coding block sizes having an upper limit smaller than a maximum allowable coding tree unit (CTU) size. The binary logarithm value of the minimum luma coding block size minus 2 is in a range of 0 to Min(N, log2_ctu_size_minus5+3), inclusive as shown in [0126], wherein log2_min_luma_coding_block_size_minus2 to be in the range of zero to log2_ctu_size_minus5+three, inclusive), N is 4 ( as shown in [0128], wherein a numerical range of 0 to min(4, log2_ctu_size_minus5+3), and log2_ ctu_size_minus5+5 represents a binary logarithm value of a CTU size of the coded video a shown inTable 5, log2_ctu_size_minus5 plus 5 specifies the luma coding tree block size of each CTU). Therefore, CTU size is used as the upper limit of the minimum luma block size. Rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 2-5, 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-24, 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12120338 (17854800). 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 the mere difference in terminology. 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).
Claims 2-5, 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11399195 (17078302). 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 the mere difference in terminology.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A2 as being anticipated by US 20210076074 A1-Chang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chang”).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses a method of video encoding (Fig. 5), the method comprising: when a minimum luma coding block size is within a range of allowable minimum luma coding block sizes, encoding a picture in a bitstream of a coded video based on the minimum luma coding block size ([0033], encoding a bitstream based on a minimum size), and encoding a first syntax element in the bitstream of the coded video, the first syntax element specifying the minimum luma coding block size and indicating a binary logarithm value of the minimum luma coding block size minus 2 (Table 1), wherein a bitstream conformance requirement of the bitstream specifies that the minimum luma coding block size is within the range of allowable minimum luma coding block sizes having an upper limit smaller than a maximum allowable coding tree unit (CTU) size (Table 1), and the upper limit being determined based on a CTU size of the coded video (The binary logarithm value of the minimum luma coding block size minus 2 is in a range of 0 to Min(N, log2_ctu_size_minus5+3), inclusive as shown in [0126], wherein log2_min_luma_coding_block_size_minus2 to be in the range of zero to log2_ctu_size_minus5+three, inclusive), N is 4 ( as shown in [0128], wherein a numerical range of 0 to min(4, log2_ctu_size_minus5+3), and log2_ ctu_size_minus5+5 represents a binary logarithm value of a CTU size of the coded video a shown inTable 5, log2_ctu_size_minus5 plus 5 specifies the luma coding tree block size of each CTU). Therefore, CTU size is used as the upper limit of the minimum luma block size.
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: encoding a second syntax element in the bitstream of the coded video, the second syntax element specifying the CTU size (Table 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 4 (decoder performs the opposite of decoding).
Regarding claim 5, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights