DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,325 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter particularly with respect to the feature found novel (quantity of significant bits informing shift of difference between luma values).
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,669 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter particularly with respect to the feature found novel (quantity of significant bits informing shift of difference between luma values).
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.
(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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a prior art DVD or similar. Claim 20 is a product-by-process claim. Such claims must be structurally distinguishable over the prior art without regard to the process by which they are made. In this case, because there is no patentable weight given to the “plurality of operations” that generates the CRM, a prior art DVD or similar manufacture reads on the claimed manufacture. Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to either cancellation or amendment to claim 20 and subject to filing a terminal disclaimer, claims 1–19 are indicated allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner was unable to find a teaching or suggestion in the prior art drawn to Applicant’s feature of deriving CCLM parameters “based on a quantity of significant bits of the first difference” between minimum and maximum luma as further explained below. While several relevant prior art references are cited herein, the closest prior art is (1) Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 3),” JVET-L1001-v5, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, 3–12 Oct. 2018, actual version appears to be v9 and uploaded (publicly available) on December 10, 2018 (herein “Bross”)1 and (2) Hsu et al., “Simplified Parameter Calculation for Chroma LM Mode,” 9th Meeting: Geneva, CH, JCT-VC-I0166, Apr-May 2012.
Bross’s Section 8.2.4.2.8 teaches CCLM and specifically teaches in numbered step 8 that the alpha parameter (a) of the linear prediction model is calculated based on maxC and minC (Applicant’s first and second chroma values) and based on a variable named, “div” (perhaps Applicant’s “second difference”).2 Section 8.2.4.2.8 further teaches that “div” is based on another variable, “diff,”3 which itself is based on the difference between maxY and minY (Applicant’s first difference)4 as well as “add” and “shift” parameters wherein those parameters are based on bit depth (Applicant’s “first preset bit depth”).5 However, as close as the prior art is to the recited features, Examiner was unable to determine from a prima facie analysis of Bross whether the reference was providing a teaching, perhaps in the form of an inexplicit intermediate value, regarding Applicant’s feature, “based on a quantity of significant bits.” In addition, Examiner was unable to find a teaching or suggestion in other analogous art drawn to Applicant’s feature of deriving CCLM parameters “based on a quantity of significant bits of the first difference” between minimum and maximum luma. Accordingly, the claims are allowed. Examiner notes that should Applicant’s review of the cited portions of Bross and the corresponding explanation above suggest Examiner is misunderstanding the reference or how it may be relevant to Applicant’s claimed features, Examiner would appreciate such explanation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al., “Enhanced Cross-Component Linear Model for Chroma Intra-Prediction in Video Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 27, No. 8 August 2018. Section II explains that the division operation for obtaining the offset (β) parameter uses a shift to avoid the computationally expensive division operation.
Jiang et al., “CE3: Multiple neighbor-based linear model (Test 5.3.1),” JVET-L0388r1, JVET 12th Meeting: Macao, CN 3–12 October 2018.
Wang et al., “CE3: Adaptive multiple cross-component linear model (Test 5.9.1),” JVET-L0419, JVET 12th Meeting: Macao, CN 3–12 October 2018.
Laroche (US 2020/0288135 A1) teaches cross-component prediction (CCP) can be used between luma and chroma and chroma and chroma (e.g. ¶ 0006), teaches the derived linear parameters are alpha and beta (e.g. ¶ 0008), and teaches taking an average of the reference samples to derive a threshold for grouping reference samples (¶ 0174).
Slim (US 10,477,205 B1) teaches inter-component prediction (col. 1) and teaches representative values as derived as an average.
Ikai (US 2019/0327466 A1) teaches multiple CCLM modes and averaging the reference samples (¶ 0295).
Zhang (US 2018/0205946 A1) teaches grouping CCLM reference samples according to thresholds and averages (¶ 0108).
Zhang (US 2018/0176594 A1) teaches downsampling for CCLM and different positions and either horizontally or vertically to match direction and phase of the chroma samples (Figs. 11–15; ¶ 0082). It also teaches evaluating whether top or left samples are available (¶ 0077).
Zhang et al., “Multi-model Based Cross-component Linear Model Chroma Intra-Prediction for Video Coding,” VCIP 2017, Dec. 10–13, 2017.
Zhang et al., “Chroma Intra Prediction Based on Inter-Channel Correlation for HEVC,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 23, No. 1, January 2014.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
1 Obtained at the following website which lists the version as version 9, https://jvet-experts.org/
2 Section 8.2.4.2.8, Eq. 8-158
3 Section 8.2.4.2.8, Eq. 8-157
4 Section 8.2.4.2.8, Eq. 8-155
5 Section 8.2.4.2.8, Eq. 8-154 and 8-153
Prosecution Insights