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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 11 October 2024 for application number 18/913,339. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 10/11/24.
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. 12,120,346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, ‘346 discloses a method performed by at least one processor in a video decoder, the method comprising: receiving a coded video bitstream that includes a current picture with at least one block located at a boundary of the current picture and coded in accordance with an intra template matching (intraTMP) mode; determining boundary filtering is enabled for the at least one block based on a syntax element in the received coded video stream; filtering one or more boundary samples corresponding to the at least one block to generate one or more filtered samples; and decoding the at least one block based on the generated one or more filtered samples (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, see teachings of claim 1. ‘346 further discloses wherein the syntax element specifies that the boundary filtering is enabled based on a determination that the at least one block is encoded in the intraTMP mode (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claim 1. ‘346 further discloses wherein the boundary filtering includes a position-dependent predictor combination (PDPC) filter (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claim 1. ‘346 further discloses wherein the boundary filtering includes a weighted average of neighboring reconstructed samples and adjacent boundary prediction samples (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claims 1 and 4. ‘346 further discloses wherein the neighboring reconstructed samples include one or more columns located left of the at least one block (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claims 1, 4, and 5. ‘346 further discloses wherein a number of columns located left of the at least one block that are used in the boundary filtering is dependent on a block size of the at least one block (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claims 1 and 4. ‘346 further discloses wherein the neighboring reconstructed samples include one or more rows located top of the at least one block (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, see teachings of claims 1, 4, and 7. ‘346 further discloses wherein a number of rows located top of the at least one block that are used in the boundary filtering is dependent on a block size of the at least one block (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, see teachings of claim 1. ‘346 further discloses wherein the syntax element specifies that the boundary filtering is disabled based on a determination that a template matching cost of a template used in the intraTMP mode is below or equal to a threshold value (claims 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 10, see teachings of claims 1 and 9. ‘346 further discloses wherein the boundary filtering includes a position-dependent predictor combination (PDPC) filter, and wherein a S parameter of the PDPC filter is dependent on the template matching cost (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. The encoding is the inverse process of the decoding in which the differences are routine functional counterparts and dot not render the pending claims patentably distinct. The encoding is the inverse process of the decoding in which the differences are routine functional counterparts and dot not render the pending claims patentably distinct. The specification of ‘346 discloses the encoding in various paragraphs such as par. 14 and also fig. 4 (This applies to claims 11-19).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 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 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.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486