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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (claims 1-2, 5-9, 14-16, 21, 24-28, and 33-34) in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it uses a phrase that is making the reader to go to the Specification. The Abstract recites, “[t]echniques are described herein […].”
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
US Patent 12,132,932 B2
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of US 12,244,806 B2.
Instant 19/034,956
US 12,132,932 B2
1. An apparatus for processing video data, comprising:
1. An apparatus for processing video data, comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
determine an intra-prediction mode for predicting a block of video data;
determine a non-integer angled intra-prediction mode for predicting a block of video data;
determine a type of smoothing filter to use for the block of video data, wherein the type of the smoothing filter is determined based at least in part on comparing at least one of a width of the block of video data and a height of the block of video data to a first threshold; and
select between a first Gaussian smoothing interpolation filter and a second Gaussian smoothing interpolation filter to use for the block of video data, […] wherein the selection is based at least in part on comparing at least one of a width of the block of video data and a height of the block of video data to a first threshold; and
perform intra-prediction for the block of video data using the determined type of smoothing filter and the intra-prediction mode.
perform intra-prediction for the block of video data using the selected smoothing interpolation filter and the intra-prediction mode.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of US US 12,132,932 B2.
Regarding claim 20, method claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as previously discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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(s) 1 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (WO 2020/216255 A1) (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai an apparatus for processing video data [Abstract, video processing method for a video encoder/decoder], comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory [Paragraphs [0056]-[0057], one or more processors configured to execute program instructions stored in a memory, or a combination of hardware and processor] and configured to:
determine an intra-prediction mode for predicting a block of video data [Paragraphs [0052]-[0053], Intra Prediction module 910 determines an intra prediction mode for the current block];
determine a type of smoothing filter to use for the block of video data [Paragraphs [0043]-[0044], the selection of intra smoothing filters applied on reference samples is determined according to a Mode Dependent Intra Smoothing (MDIS) condition for directional intra prediction modes, or block size and intra prediction mode, S808, S812], wherein the type of the smoothing filter is determined based at least in part on comparing at least one of a width of the block of video data and a height of the block of video data to a first threshold [Paragraphs [0044]-[0052], no matter the current intra prediction mode is a WAIP mode or a regular directional intra prediction mode, the Gaussian interpolation filter is applied when the mode difference value minDisVerHor is larger than a size-dependent threshold]; and
perform intra-prediction for the block of video data using the determined type of smoothing filter and the intra-prediction mode [Paragraphs [0052], The intra reference sample filter determined above is then applied to the reference samples of the current block, as intra-prediction mode, to generate an intra predictor for the current block in step S818].
Regarding claim 20, method claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same rationale as previously discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,5-9,14-16,21,27-28 and 33-34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487