DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prov. DP rejection is overturned due to the amendments. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims in the co-pending application state that “in response to DHI mode is enabled, deriving, by the decoder using a predefined method, a high precision intra mode under a predefined condition” {Claim 1}. Claims 3 or 4 in the co-pending app further defines the predefined method selecting a high precision intra mode based on cost or Claims 6-7 in the co-pending app further define a high precision intra mode based on a histogram of DIMD.
Claim 15 was rejected under a 112b/102 rejection for a product by process rationale. However, it is unclear (without any provided rationale from the applicant) why claim 15 was cancelled and is now being presented as newly added claim 30. Claim 30 is being rejected under a 112b/102 rejection.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites a product by process claim (i.e. a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream, wherein the bitstream is generated by an video decoding method). A bit stream generated by a method... is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(IIl). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 30 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by the Chen reference as shown below in the office action.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/927,806 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-pending application is narrower in scope than this instant application. Furthermore, the newly added limitations of where the DHI mode is derived based on a cost of TIMD or a histogram of DIMD appears to be located in the dependent claims of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20110099594)
Regarding claim 30, Chen discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream generated by the method of claim 21. [See Chen [0015] Storing video data after it has been encoded. Also, see 0031, Computer-readable storage medium comprising stored video data.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 8, 21 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov (US 20240259565) in view of Filippov et al. (US 20240244194).
Regarding claim 1, Filippov discloses a method for video decoding, comprising:
obtaining, by a decoder, a first control flag signaled at a specified level that comprises one of following levels: a Transform Block (TB) level, a Coding Block (CB) level, a slice level, a picture level, or a sequence level, [See Filippov [0169] “bExtIntraDir” Flag. It is inherent that this flag will be included at some level within the bitstream.]
wherein the first control flag indicates whether a Decoder-side High Precision Intra Mode Derivation (DHI) mode is enabled, and [See Filippov [0135-0137] An indication of extended precision based on “bExtIntraDIr”. Also, see 0169, “bExtIntraDir” Flag, and 0174, flag is utilized in combination with TIMD.]
Fillipov does not explicitly disclose
wherein the DHI mode is derived based on a cost of Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode or a histogram of Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) mode.
However, Fillipov ‘194 does disclose
wherein the DHI mode is derived based on a cost of Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode or a histogram of Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) mode. [See Fillipov ‘194 [0151] select one or more intra prediction modes (e.g., the two highest peaks in the HoG) from the increased set of intra prediction modes available to TIMD 2004. For example, DIMD 2012 is configured to determine or select one or more intra prediction modes (e.g., the two highest peaks in the HoG) from 129 angular intra prediction modes. Alternatively, see 0138, TIMD intra prediction mode selected from the larger set of intra prediction modes (e.g. the set of 129 angular modes) available to TIMD. Also, see 0142, Selects TIMD mode based on a RD cost. Also, see 0143.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Filippov to add the teachings of Fillipov ‘194, in order to incorporate the obvious details of selecting an intra prediction mode when dealing with a greater precision of intra prediction modes. Also, this improves upon compression gain for intra prediction [See Fillipov ‘194 [0124]].
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 28, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 30.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov (US 20240259565) in view of Filippov ‘194 (US 20240244194) and in further view of Wang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Wang) (US 20240137529).
Regarding claim 2, Filippov (modified by Filippov ‘194) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Filippov does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: in response to determining that the first control flag is enabled, obtaining, by the decoder, a second flag of DHI indicating whether the DHI mode is used at the specified level.
However, Wang does disclose
further comprising: in response to determining that the first control flag is enabled, obtaining, by the decoder, a second flag of DHI indicating whether the DHI mode is used at the specified level. [See Wang [0174] When DIMD flag is one, another CU-level DIMD control flag is signaled to indicate the level at which the DIMD is performed. Also, see 0414.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Filippov (modified by Filippov ‘194) to add the teachings of Wang, in order to improve upon problems of the current design of DIMD [See Wang [0278]].
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 23-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the non-statutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486