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 .
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, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18910977(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application anticipates the present application..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18909593(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application anticipates the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 20 of copending Application No. 18908346 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application anticipates the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18909187 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application anticipates the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 20 of copending Application No. 18907838 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application anticipates the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites a decoding method, comprising: determining a first decoding parameter based on a template region; determining a reference sample value of a first colour component of a current block ; determining a first weighting coefficient based on the reference sample value of the first colour component of the current block and the first decoding parameter and determining a first predicted value of a second colour component of the current block based on the first weighting coefficient and a reference sample value of the second colour component of the current block.
The limitation of determining a first decoding parameter based on a template region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Organizing, acquiring, displaying, and manipulating data encoded or decoded is directed to an abstract concept. Similarly, the limitation of determining a reference sample value of a first colour component of a current block, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Organizing, acquiring, displaying, and manipulating data encoded or decoded is directed to an abstract concept. In addition, determining a first weighting coefficient based on the reference sample value of the first colour component of the current block and the first decoding parameter and determining a first predicted value of a second colour component of the current block based on the first weighting coefficient and a reference sample value of the second colour component of the current block, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – a decoding method. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1-20 are ineligible.
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(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by US 20220094940 A1-Bandyopadhyay (Hereinafter referred to as “Band”).
Regarding claim 1, Band discloses a decoding method, comprising:
determining a first decoding parameter based on a template region ([0110], LIC parameters);
determining a reference sample value of a first colour component of a current block ([0107], wherein reconstructed samples are used. Reconstructed samples are reference samples; [0109], wherein reconstructed neighboring luma samples. The luma samples are interpreted as the first colour component);
determining a first weighting coefficient based on the reference sample value of the first colour component of the current block and the first decoding parameter ([0107], [0110] wherein scaling factor α and offset β based on template reference samples from regions. The scaling factors are weight); and
determining a first predicted value of a second colour component of the current block based on the first weighting coefficient and a reference sample value of the second colour component of the current block ([0113]).
Regarding claim 2, Band discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first decoding parameter based on the template region comprises: determining a reference sample value of the template region (Fig 9-10, 13-14); and determining the first decoding parameter based on the reference sample value of the template region ([0110]), wherein determining the reference sample value of the template region comprises: determining a reconstructed value of a first colour component of the template region, and a reconstructed value of a second colour component of the template region ([0113], reconstructed luma and chroma); and determining a reconstructed value of a first colour component of a reference region of the template region, and a reconstructed value of a second colour component of the reference region of the template region ([0113], reconstructed chroma and luma).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11, wherein encoding is the opposite of decoding ([0122])
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 13-19 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 and overcoming the 101.
Conclusion
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