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 in response to a continuation application filed in which claims 1-12 of the instant application are pending and ready for examination.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent Number 12,160,592. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent Number 12,160,592, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, independent claims 1, 5, and, 9 of U.S. Patent Number 12,160,592 disclose all the elements and steps of independent claims 1, 5, and, 9, respectively, of the instant application except the features of determining a target block to be decoded by splitting a coding tree unit (CTU) and a chroma block including chroma samples of the target block. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art to know that splitting a coding tree unit into blocks and/or subblocks in HEVC allows for more flexible block prediction and coding techniques that will result in improved efficiency and computational savings.
Additionally, claim 9 of U.S. Patent Number 12,160,592 fails to disclose the claimed step in claim 9 of the instant application of transmitting a bitstream encoded with video data to a video decoding device. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art for an encoded video bitstream to be transmitted to a video decoder in order to reach more viewers and to provide a seamless video coding and viewing experience.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/923,254. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/923,254, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, independent claims 1, 5, and, 9 of copending Application No. 18/923,254 disclose all the elements and steps of independent claims 1, 5, and, 9, respectively, of the instant application except the features of determining a target block to be decoded by splitting a coding tree unit (CTU) and a chroma block including chroma samples of the target block. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art to know that splitting a coding tree unit into blocks and/or subblocks in HEVC allows for more flexible block prediction and coding techniques that will result in improved efficiency and computational savings.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/923,195. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/923,195, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, independent claims 1, 5, and, 9 of copending Application No. 18/923,195 disclose all the elements and steps of independent claims 1, 5, and, 9, respectively, of the instant application except the features of determining a target block to be decoded by splitting a coding tree unit (CTU) and a chroma block including chroma samples of the target block. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art to know that splitting a coding tree unit into blocks and/or subblocks in HEVC allows for more flexible block prediction and coding techniques that will result in improved efficiency and computational savings.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/923,132. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/923,132, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, independent claims 1, 5, and, 9 of copending Application No. 18/923,132 disclose all the elements and steps of independent claims 1, 5, and, 9, respectively, of the instant application except the features of determining a target block to be decoded by splitting a coding tree unit (CTU) and a chroma block including chroma samples of the target block. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art to know that splitting a coding tree unit into blocks and/or subblocks in HEVC allows for more flexible block prediction and coding techniques that will result in improved efficiency and computational savings.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art made of record in regards to applicant’s claimed invention is as follows:
Huang et al. (US 2017/0244975) discloses a method of cross-component residual prediction for video data comprising two or more components. First prediction data and second prediction data for a first component and a second component of a current block are received respectively. One or more parameters of a cross-component function are derived based on the first prediction data and the second prediction data. The cross-component function is related to the first component and the second component with the first component as an input of the cross-component function and the second component as an output of the cross-component function. A residual predictor is derived for second residuals of the second component using the cross-component function with first reconstructed residuals of the first component as the input of the cross-component function. The predicted difference between the second residuals of the second component and the residual predictor is encoded or decoded (abstract).
Laroche et al. (US 2020/0288135) discloses cross-component prediction and methods for obtaining a chroma sample from an associated luma sample using a linear model with parameters. The parameters are derived from luma and chroma samples neighboring the luma and chroma blocks considered. The luma samples are down-sampled to match chroma resolution. A competition between several luma down-sampling schemes is proposed wherein two 1-tap filters are competing. This reduces computational complexity at the encoder. Also, a competition between several sample sets defining the neighboring luma and chroma samples used for parameter derivation is conducted, wherein a competing sample set is an irregular sample set. The irregular sample set preferably comprises only samples from second lines next to respective first lines of outer neighboring samples parallel and immediately adjacent to respectively the left boundary and the top boundary of the current block. This improves chroma prediction and thus coding efficiency (abstract).
Lim et al. (US 2020/0413069) discloses an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for performing intra prediction mode based intra prediction. An image decoding method may comprise decoding an intra prediction mode of a current block, deriving at least one intra prediction mode from the decoded intra prediction mode of the current block, generating two or more intra prediction blocks using the intra prediction mode of the current block and the derived intra prediction mode, and generating an intra prediction block of the current block based on the two or more intra prediction blocks (abstract).
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1, 5, and 9, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
Examiner points out that in the decision rendered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on 05/02/2024 of parent application 16/960,127, it was stated by the patent judges that in order for the prior art to teach or suggest the claim limitation “determining, from the bitstream, information indicating one set to be used for generating downsampled neighboring luma samples of the luma block from among three available sets of reconstructed neighboring luma samples, wherein the three available sets include i) a set of reconstructed neighboring luma samples in left columns adjacent to the luma block, ii) a set of reconstructed neighboring luma samples in upper rows adjacent to the luma block, and iii) a set of reconstructed neighboring luma samples in the left columns and the upper rows adjacent to the luma block”, the prior art must teach or suggest the recited “three available sets”. In other words, the aforementioned claim limitation recites three different sets of reconstructed neighboring samples that must be available and present for the “determining” step in order to determine which set to use to generated the downsampled neighboring luma samples.
As such, the independent claims are particularly interpreted based on FIGs. 7-11 of applicant’s drawings and the closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed limitation “determining, from the bitstream, information indicating one set to be used for generating downsampled neighboring luma samples of the luma block from among three available sets of reconstructed neighboring luma samples, wherein the three available sets include i) a set of reconstructed neighboring luma samples in left columns adjacent to the luma block, ii) a set of reconstructed neighboring luma samples in upper rows adjacent to the luma block, and iii) a set of reconstructed neighboring luma samples in the left columns and the upper rows adjacent to the luma block”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482