Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
3. Note that the NPL filed on 02/06/2025 was not included in the IDS.
Specification
4. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bross et al. “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7)” JVET-P2001-vE, hereinafter “Bross”.
As per claim 7, Bross discloses a non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium that stores a bitstream (page 85, lines 5-8 from section 7.4.2.1), generated by the image encoding method of claim 4 (the method steps of claim 4 do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 7 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Bross which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (page 85, lines 5-8 from section 7.4.2.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross et al. “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7)” JVET-P2001-vE, in view of Egilmez et al. (US 2021/0099702) hereinafter “Egilmez”.
As per claim 1, Bross discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining intra prediction mode information (page 299, section 8.7.4.1, predModeIntra) and a low frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index (page 299, section 8.7.4.1, LFNST_idx) from a bitstream (page 176, section 8.4.5.1, predModeIntra is part of the inputs to the decoding process and LFNST_idx is encoded and included in the encoded data, see last 3 lines from page 153, 1st line from page 154 and table 123 on page 390);
updating an intra prediction mode of a chroma block to an intra DC based on the intra prediction mode of the chroma block being a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode and a prediction mode of a luma block corresponding to the chroma block being a palette mode (page 299, section 8.7.4.1, When predModeIntra is equal to either INTRA_LT_CCLM, INTRA_L_CCLM, or INTRA_T_CCLM, predModeIntra is derived as follows…if CuPredMode[ 0 ][ xTbY + nTbW * SubWidthC / 2 ][ yTbY + nTbH * SubHeightC / 2 ] is equal to MODE_IBC or MODE_PLT, predModeIntra is set equal to INTRA_DC);
determining an LFNST set comprising LFNST matrices based on the updated intra prediction mode (page 302, section 8.7.4.3 Low frequency non-separable transformation matrix derivation process. Inputs to this process are: a variable nTrS specifying the transform output length, a variable predModeIntra specifying the intra prediction mode for LFNST set selection, a variable lfnstIdx specifying the LFNST index for transform selection in the selected LFNST set selection. Output of this process is the transformation matrix lowFreqTransMatrix); and
wherein the palette mode is the prediction mode corresponding to a specific position in the luma block (pages 299-300, section 8.7.4.1, if CuPredMode[ 0 ][ xTbY + nTbW * SubWidthC / 2 ][ yTbY + nTbH * SubHeightC / 2 ] is equal to MODE_IBC or MODE_PLT, predModeIntra is set equal to INTRA_DC),
wherein the specific position is set to ((xTbY+(nTbW*SubWidthC)/2), (yTbY+ (nTbH*SubHeightC)/2)) (see pages 299-300, section 8.7.4.1, if CuPredMode[ 0 ][ xTbY + nTbW * SubWidthC / 2 ][ yTbY + nTbH * SubHeightC / 2 ] is equal to MODE_IBC or MODE_PLT, predModeIntra is set equal to INTRA_DC. (xTbY+(nTbW*SubWidthC)/2, yTbY+ (nTbH*SubHeightC)/2) is considered a specific position in the luma block since ( xTbY, yTbY ) specifying the top-left sample of the current luma transform block relative to the top-left luma sample of the current picture),
wherein xTbY and yTbY denote top-left coordinates of the luma block, wherein nTbW and nTbH denote a width and a height of the chroma block (see first lines 1-5 from section 8.7.4.1 on page 299),
wherein SubWidthC and SubHeightC denote variables corresponding to the color format, wherein based on the color format being 4:2:0, SubWidthC and SubHeightC are 2, and wherein based on the color format being 4:2:2, SubWidthC is 2 and SubHeightC is 1 (see table 2 on page 19).
However, Bross does not explicitly disclose performing an LFNST on the chroma block based on a LFNST matrix derived from the LFNST set.
In the same field of endeavor, Egilmez discloses performing an LFNST on the chroma block based on a LFNST matrix derived from the LFNST set (paragraph 0006, Rather than always applying a LFNST for both luma transform coefficients and chroma transform coefficients, techniques described herein may selectively apply the LFNST to chroma transform coefficients based on a partitioning of the video data),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Bross in view of Egilmez. One would be motivated as such as the video coder potentially reduces complexity of the video coder and reduces signaling overhead with little or no loss in prediction accuracy (Egilmez, paragraph 0006). This rationale applies to all combinations of Bross and Egilmez used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 2, Bross discloses wherein when an intra prediction type corresponding to the specific position is a matrix weighted (MW) intra prediction mode, the intra prediction mode of the chroma block is updated to an intra planar mode (page 299, section 8.7.4.1, If intra_mip_flag[ xTbY + nTbW * SubWidthC / 2 ][ yTbY + nTbH * SubHeightC / 2 ] is equal to 1, predModeIntra is set equal to INTRA_PLANAR).
As per claim 3, Bross discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein when the prediction mode corresponding to the specific position is an intra block copy (IBC) mode, the intra prediction mode of the chroma block is updated to an intra DC mode (pages 299-300, section 8.7.4.1, if CuPredMode[ 0 ][ xTbY + nTbW * SubWidthC / 2 ][ yTbY + nTbH * SubHeightC / 2 ] is equal to MODE_IBC or MODE_PLT, predModeIntra is set equal to INTRA_DC).
As per claim 4, the claim is directed to an image encoding method corresponding to the image decoding method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 4. In addition, Bross teaches deriving prediction samples for a chroma block based on an intra prediction mode for the chroma block being a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode (pages 299-300, section 8.7.4.1, When predModeIntra is equal to either INTRA_LT_CCLM, INTRA_L_CCLM, or INTRA_T_CCLM, predModeIntra is derived as follows…); deriving residual samples for the chroma block based on the prediction samples (page 299, line 8 from section 8.7.4.1, Output of this process is the (nTbW)x(nTbH) array res[ x ][ y ] of residual samples).
As per claims 5-6, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 2-3 are applicable for claims 5-6.
As per claim 8, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claim 8; in addition, Egimez discloses obtaining a bitstream and transmitting the data comprising the bitstream (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0043, In one example, computer-readable medium 110 represents a communication medium to enable source device 102 to transmit encoded video data directly to destination device 116 in real-time, e.g., via a radio frequency network or computer-based network. Output interface 108 may modulate a transmission signal including the encoded video data, and input interface 122 may demodulate the received transmission signal).
Double Patenting
10. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
11. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, 11, 12, 13 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,750,817. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
12. Claims 1-8 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/918,879 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
13. 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.
14. Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,750,817. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of “wherein based on the color format being 4:2:0, SubWidthC and SubHeightC are 2, and wherein based on the color format being 4:2:2, SubWidthC is 2 and SubHeightC is 1.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
15. Claims 1-6 and 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,15,838 recite the decoding/encoding apparatus, corresponding to the decoding/encoding method of the instant application, to perform an LFNST on a chroma block based on a LFNST matrix derived from the LFNST.
16. Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 7-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,600. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘600 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-4 and 7-11 of the current application; also they are more narrow and therefore anticipates the instant claims.
17. Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 7-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,530. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘530 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-4 and 7-12 of the current application; also they are more narrow and therefore anticipates the instant claims.
18. Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,691. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘691 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-8 of the current application.
19. Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘509 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-8 of the current application.
20. Claims 1-8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/812,345 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘345 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-8 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20210067792, US-20200389667, US-20200389661, US-20220141465, US-20220210411)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482