DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement’s (IDS) were submitted on 10/07/2024 & 03/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 3-11 and 13-20 of copending Application No. 18/912,041(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application is broader in claim scope than the claim limitations in the co-pending application ‘041.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Huo) (WO 2020029202).
Regarding claim 1, Huo discloses a decoding method, comprising:
decoding a bitstream to determine a first control parameter of a current block; [See Huo [0067] σ is a value relevant to a quantization parameter.]
determining a reference sample value of a first color component of the current block; [See Huo [0067] first color neighboring reference value.]
determining a weighting coefficient according to the reference sample value of the first color component of the current block and the first control parameter; [See Huo [0066] Formula (5) calculates weights using first color neighboring reference value and a.]
determining, according to the weighting coefficient and a reference sample value of a second color component of the current block, a prediction value of the second color component of the current block; and [See Huo [0109 and/or 0114] Formula (6 or 7) calculates alpha/beta using weights and second color component neighboring reference values. Also, see 0032, Alpha/beta is used for calculating a predicted value of chroma in Formula (1).]
determining, according to the prediction value of the second color component of the current block, a reconstruction value of a second color component sampling point of the current block. [See Huo [Fig. 2] Video decoding with prediction for reconstruction.]
Regarding claim 9, Huo discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Huo discloses
wherein the determining a reference sample value of a first color component of the current block comprises: determining the reference sample value of the first color component of the current block according to an neighboring sampling value of the first color component of the current block and a reconstruction value of the first color component of the current block, wherein the method further comprises: [See Huo [0076]
setting the reference sample value of the first color component of the current block to be equal to an absolute value of a difference between a first intra-block reference value and a first neighboring reference value; wherein the first intra-block reference value is the reconstruction value of the first color component of the current block or a value obtained by filtering the reconstruction value of the first color component of the current block; and [See Huo [0076]
the first neighboring reference value is the neighboring sampling value of the first color component of the current block or a value obtained by filtering the neighboring sampling value of the first color component of the current block. [See Huo [0076]
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights