DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendments file on 10/13/2025 are entered and being considered by the examiner.
Claim 11 was amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the corresponding claims recite the same decoding and encoding, and bitstream transmission subject matter, including partitioning a current coding tree block into a plurality of coding blocks, parsing a first syntax element, parsing a second syntax element, and parsing at least one of a third syntax element and a fourth syntax element.
Claims 1-11 of the instant application contain the limitations found in claims 1-11 of the patent, and the limitations found in the instant application’s claims appear in the same corresponding claim number of the patent (e.g. partitioning limitation found in instant application claim 1 is found in the patent’s corresponding claim 1, etc.). The claim sets differ in that independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the patent further recite determining a split mode of the current coding block based on at least one of the first through four syntax elements, generating prediction samples of the current block based on the split mode of the current block, and generating reconstructed or residual samples of the current block based on the prediction samples. These additional limitations further narrow the subject matter claimed in the patent and do not render the instant claims patentably distinct from corresponding patent claims. Accordingly, the instant claims are broader variations of, and would have been obvious over, the corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,619.
Claims 1-11 are also provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of co-pending Application No. 19/072,988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the corresponding claims recite the same decoding, encoding, and bitstream transmission subject matter, including the same conditional processing of the first through fourth syntax elements for determining the applicable block partitioning structure.
Claims 1-11 of the instant application contain limitations corresponding to those recited in claims 1-11 of Application No. 19/072,988. The instant independent claims additionally recite partitioning the current coding block into a plurality of coding blocks based on the current coding tree block being out of boundary of the current picture. This additional limitation merely further limits the scope of the same block-partitioning recited in the reference claims and does not render the instant claims patentably distinct. Accordingly, the instant claims are narrower variations of, and would have been obvious, over the corresponding claims of Application No. 19/072,998.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not yet been issued as a patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejections above are overcome.
Claims 1-11 are not rejected over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following references are deemed most relevant:
Poirier et al. (US 20200077094 A1) teaches picture-boundary-dependent block partitioning and syntax parsing for various split methods (see FIG’s 11-16 and ¶¶ [0146]-[0187]).
Qualcomm, Technicolor (“Partition only software of the video coding technology proposal by Qualcomm and Technicolor”; found cited as relevant art in Non-final Rejection of Application No. 18/225,379, filed on 04/02/2024, upon which instant application claims priority; copy provided by Examiner) which proposes quad-tree, binary-tree, and triple tree block partitioning and associated conditional syntax processing (see Section 2 and FIG’s 1-4).
The claimed invention is directed to block partitioning an image using tree-based partition structures for image coding. Prior art of record, including Poirier and Qualcomm, Technicolor, fails to teach or render obvious independent claims 1, 6, and 11 which recites a specific conditional hierarchy for processing the first through fourth syntax elements, in which subsequent syntax elements are parsed based on the value of preceding syntax elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL DAVID BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)272-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/SDB/
Samuel D. Baynes
Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights