DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a line determination unit” and a “filtering unit” in claim 1 and an “estimating section” and “filtering section” as recited in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Generic Placeholder coupled with functional language
Corresponding Structural Support from the Specification
“line determination unit …”
[0109] “… the line determining section 120 determines, for each line perpendicular to each boundary, whether or not to apply the deblocking filter to the two neighboring blocks neighboring across that boundary. The per-line determination condition may be the following determination condition B′, for example
“…filtering unit...”
“… estimating section”
Fig. 10 el. 360 and [0149] “…The parameter estimating section 360 calculates determination parameter values for at least one line perpendicular to each boundary from among the determination parameters used when the line determining section 320 conducts per-line determinations”
“…line determining section …”
Fig. 6 el. 120 and [0099-0100];
“… selecting section …”
Fig. 6 el. 130 and [0099] and [0112]
“…filtering section …”
Fig. 6 el. 140 and [0099], [0112]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, which recites the limitation, “… the determination is based on: two lines of the plurality of lines located at both ends of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary, …” it is unclear to the Examiner exactly how the two lines of the plurality of lines are located at both ends of the neighboring block as well as neighboring a center of the neighboring block as recited in the claims. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
Regarding claim 7, which recites the limitation “… at least one basis line, a value of a determination parameter for at least one estimated line of the plurality of lines…” It is unclear what is to be considered as the claimed “basis line” and “estimated line”.
Claim limitations: “line determination unit”, “filtering unit”, “estimation section”, line determination section”, “selection section”, “filtering section”, as recited in claims 1 and 7, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 11,245,895 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope of the instant application is covered by the scope of the claims in the patented application with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below, for example, see the detailed claim analysis made for claims 1-2 and 4-5.
As per claim 1, Ikeda teaches an image processing apparatus (claim 1, “an image processing device”), comprising: a line determination unit (claim 1, “a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: ) configured to determine, in parallel for each line of a plurality of lines in a neighboring block in a decoded image, whether to apply a deblocking filter to each line of the plurality of lines (claim 1, “determine, at a time of encoding process on an encoding object image, whether to apply a deblocking filter to a first set of pixels of a specific line of eight lines in a respective 8×8 neighboring block of a plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks within a decoded image”), wherein the plurality of lines is orthogonal to a boundary in the decoded image (claim 1, “wherein the eight lines include 0th to 7th lines, orthogonal to a boundary”), the neighboring block neighbors the boundary (claim 1, “within the respective 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of neighboring blocks”), and the determination is based on: two lines of the plurality of lines located at both ends of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary (claim 1, “a first 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks neighbors a second 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks across the boundary within the decoded image”), and two lines of the plurality of lines neighboring a center of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary (claim 1, “the specific line is other than 0th, 3rd, 4th, and 7th lines of the eight lines, and the determination is based on a second set of pixels of the 0th, 3rd, 4th, and 7th lines of the eight lines of the respective 8×8 neighboring block”); and a filtering unit (claim 1, “the deblocking filter”) configured to apply the deblocking filter to at least one line of the plurality of lines based on the determination (claim 1, “apply, based on the determination, the deblocking filter to the first set of pixels of the specific line”).
As per claim 2, Ikeda teaches wherein a block size of the neighboring block is 8 x 8 (claim 1, “…a first set of pixels of a specific line of eight lines in a respective 8×8 neighboring block of a plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks”), the plurality of lines includes 8 lines from 0th to 7th lines (claim 1, “wherein the eight lines include 0th to 7th lines”), and the line determination unit is further configured to determine whether to apply the deblocking filter to the 8 lines by using 0th,3rd, 4th and 7th lines among the 8 lines (claim 1, “and the determination is based on a second set of pixels of the 0th, 3rd, 4th, and 7th lines of the eight lines of the respective 8×8 neighboring block”).
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,245,895 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,245,895 B2.
11. Claim 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 11,245,770,525 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope of the instant application is covered by the scope of the claims in the patented application with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below, for example, see the detailed claim analysis made for claims 1-2 and 4-5.
As per claim 1, Ikeda teaches an image processing apparatus (claim 1, “an image processing device”), comprising: a line determination unit configured to (claim 1, “a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: ) to determine, in parallel for each lines of a plurality of lines in a neighboring block in a decoded image, whether to apply a deblocking filter to each line of the plurality of lines (claim 1, “determine whether to apply a deblocking filter to a first set of pixels of a specific line of eight lines in a respective 8×8 neighboring block of a plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks within a decoded image”), wherein the plurality of lines is orthogonal to a boundary in the decoding image (claim 1, “wherein the eight lines include 0th to 7th lines, orthogonal to a boundary, within the respective 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks”), the neighboring block neighbors the boundary (claim 1), and the determination is based on: two lines of the plurality of lines located at both ends of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary (claim 1, “wherein the eight lines include 0th to 7th lines, orthogonal to a boundary, within the respective 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks”), and two lines of the plurality of lines neighboring a center of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary (claim 1, “wherein the eight lines include 0th to 7th lines, orthogonal to a boundary, within the respective 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks); and a filtering unit configured to apply the deblocking filter to at least one line of the plurality of lines based on the determination (claim 1, “and apply, based on the determination, the deblocking filter to the first set of pixels of the specific line”).
As per claim 2, Ikeda teaches wherein a block size of the neighboring block is 8 x 8 (claim 1, “he respective 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks, a first 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks neighbors a second 8×8 neighboring block of the plurality of 8×8 neighboring blocks”), the plurality of lines includes 8 lines from 0th to 7th lines (claim 1, “wherein the eight lines include 0th to 7th lines”), and the line determination unit (Claim 1, “central processing unit (CPU)”) is further configured to determine whether to apply the deblocking filter to the 8 lines by use of 0th, 3rd, 4th, and 7th lines among the 8 lines (and the determination is based on a second set of pixels of the 0th, 3rd, 4th, and 7th lines of the eight lines of the respective 8×8 neighboring block”).
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,525 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,525 B2.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-6 are is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Norkin et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0051480 A1).
As per claim 1, Norkin teaches an image processing apparatus, comprising: a line determination unit (fig. 1 el. “line-wise decision between strong and weak filter” and [0032]), in parallel for each of a plurality of lines in a neighboring block in a decoded image, whether to apply a deblocking filter to each plurality of lines (fig. 2, fig. 3A; [0032-0033], [0037]; “… a line-wise or line-specific filter decision employed to select whether strong de-blocking filtering or weak de-blocking filtering should be applied to the current line of pixels in the pixel block. Thus, a block-specific filter decision value is calculated once and applies to all lines in the block with regard to the boundary to the neighboring block. If de-blocking filtering should be applied as determined based on the block-specific filter decision value, a respective line-specific filter decision value is calculated for each line to select between strong and weak de-blocking filtering”), wherein the plurality of lines is orthogonal to a boundary in the decoded image (fig. 3A-B), the neighboring block neighboring the boundary (fig. 3A-3B), and the determination is based on: two lines of the plurality of line located at both ends of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary (fig. 3A-3B; pixel lines q01-q30 to q07 to q37 in the neighboring block), and two lines of the plurality of lines neighboring a center of the neighboring block with respect to the boundary (fig. 3A-3B); and a filtering unit (fig. 1; el. “strong filter” and “weak filter”) configured to apply the deblocking filter to at least one line of the plurality of lines based on the determination (fig. 1, fig. 2 fi. 6).
As per claim 2, Norkin teaches wherein a block size of the neighboring block is 8x8 ([0032], “… such a macroblock can in turn be divided into smaller blocks of different sizes, such as 4.times.4 or 8.times.8 pixels”), the plurality of lines includes 8 lines from 0th to 7th lines (fig. 3A-3B; lines q00 to q07) and the line determination unit is further configured to determine whether to apply the deblocking filter to the 8 lines by use of 0th, 3rd, 4th, and 7th lines among the 8 lines (see fig. 3A-3B; [0032], [0045-0046], [0055]; “A further alternative is to calculate the block-specific filter decision value based on pixel values not in two predefined lines and corresponding predefined lines as described above but rather based on pixel values in four predefined lines in the block and four corresponding predefined lines in the neighboring block… variants of this embodiment include using row/column number zero, three, four and seven”).
As per claim 3, Norkin teaches wherein the boundary is one of a boundary of a prediction unit as a unit of prediction or a boundary of a transformation unit as a unit of orthogonal transformation ([0032]).
As per claim 4, which is the corresponding image processing method with the limitations of the image processing apparatus as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 5, which is the corresponding image processing method with the limitations of the image processing apparatus as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 6, which is the corresponding image processing method with the limitations of the limitations of the image processing apparatus as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made in claim 3 also applies here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seregin et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0182762 A1), “Adaptive Filtering Method and Apparatus”
Nishihara et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/002395 A1), “Deblocking Filtering Processor and Deblocking Filtering Method”
Wada et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0322303 A1), “Video Encoding/Decoding Method and Apparatus”.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 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 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486