DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 1/21/2025 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 nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,831,926 B2 and 12,167,043 B2 in view of Zhu et al. (US 20220007013 A1) (hereinafter Zhu).
*Note: The items below in BOLD correspond to claim limitations that are identical, or functionally identical between the instant application and Issued U.S. Patent Nos. 11,831,926 B2 and 12,167,043 B2.
Instant Application No. 18/941,771
Issued U.S. Patent No. 12,167,043 B2
Issued U.S. Patent No. 11,831,926 B2
Claim 1
A method for filtering at least one sub-block transform boundary of a current coding unit, the method comprising:
obtaining information indicating that for the current coding unit, sub-block transform is used, wherein the current coding is split into a first transform sub-block and a second transform sub-block, thereby forming the sub-block transform boundary;
setting a maximum filter length value based on a dimension of a transform sub-block within the coding unit, wherein the dimension of the transform sub-block within the coding unit is a width of the transform sub-block when the boundary is vertical boundary or a height of the transform sub-block when the boundary is a horizontal boundary, wherein the setting comprises comparing the dimension of the transform sub-block with a predetermined size threshold, wherein the maximum filter length value indicates a maximum number of samples to modify when deblocking a boundary of the coding unit; and
filtering the sub-block transform boundary of the coding unit based on the determined maximum filter length value, wherein the dimension is greater than a first predetermined size threshold, and
if the coding unit does not include prediction sub-blocks and the dimension is greater than or equal to a second predetermined size threshold, then the maximum filter length value is set to 7,
otherwise if the coding unit includes prediction sub-blocks and the dimension is greater than or equal to the second predetermined size threshold, the maximum filter length value is set to 5,
otherwise the maximum filter length value is set to 3.
Claim 1
A method for deblocking at least one boundary of a coding unit, the method comprising:
determining that the coding unit uses a sub-block transform, wherein the sub-block transform generates a transform sub-block boundary within the coding unit, thereby forming at least a transform sub-block within the coding unit, and wherein the sub-block transform comprises Sub-Block Transforms;
as a result of determining that the coding unit uses the sub-block transform, determining a maximum filter length based on a dimension of the transform sub-block within the coding unit, wherein the dimension of the transform sub-block within the coding unit is a width of the transform sub-block when the boundary is vertical boundary or a height of the transform sub- block when the boundary is a horizontal boundary, wherein the determining comprises comparing the dimension of the transform sub-block with a predetermined size threshold, wherein the maximum filter length indicates a maximum number of samples to modify when deblocking a boundary of the coding unit, and wherein the determined maximum filter length is reduced if the coding unit uses prediction sub-blocks comprising a width smaller than 16 for deblocking of a vertical boundary or height smaller than 16 for deblocking of a horizontal boundary; and
deblocking the boundary of the coding unit based on the determined maximum filter length, wherein the boundary of the coding unit is aligned with a transform sub-block boundary, and
the maximum filter length on the side of the boundary inside the coding unit that uses sub-block transform is set to 7 when the boundary is aligned with a transform sub-block boundary and is at least equal to or larger than a predetermined size threshold in samples from another transform or coding unit boundary on that side.
Claim 1
A method for deblocking at least one boundary of a coding unit, the method comprising:
determining that the coding unit uses a sub-block transform, wherein the sub-block transform generates a transform sub-block boundary within the coding unit, thereby forming at least a transform sub-block within the coding unit, and wherein the sub-block transform comprises Sub-Block Transforms and/or Intra Sub Partitions;
as a result of determining that the coding unit uses the sub-block transform, determining a maximum filter length based on a dimension of the transform sub-block within the coding unit, wherein the dimension of the transform sub-block within the coding unit is a width of the transform sub-block when the boundary is vertical boundary or a height of the transform sub-block when the boundary is a horizontal boundary, wherein the determining comprises comparing the dimension of the transform sub-block with a predetermined size threshold, wherein the maximum filter length indicates a maximum number of samples to modify when deblocking a boundary of the coding unit, and wherein the determined maximum filter length is reduced if the coding unit uses prediction sub-blocks comprising a width smaller than 16 for deblocking of a vertical boundary or height smaller than 16 for deblocking of a horizontal boundary; and
deblocking the boundary of the coding unit based on the determined maximum filter length, wherein the boundary of the coding unit is aligned with a coding unit boundary, a transform sub-block boundary, or a prediction sub-block boundary,
wherein the maximum filter length on the side of the boundary which is inside the coding unit that uses sub-block transform is set to 7 when the transform sub-block boundary is parallel with a coding unit boundary and is at least equal to or larger than a predetermined size threshold in samples from the transform sub-block boundary.
Independent claim 7 recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “an apparatus” rather than “a method”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 8-11 are claiming analogous limitations to claims 2-6 and 8-11 of Issued U.S. Patent No. 11,831,926 B2.
Independent claim 7 recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “an apparatus” rather than “a method”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 8-11 are claiming analogous limitations to claims 2-6 and 8-11 of Issued U.S. Patent No. 11,831,926 B2.
Table 1.0
Regarding claim 1, as outlined above, claim 1 of the instant application is a variation of claim 1 of issued U.S. Patent Nos. 11,831,926 B2 and 12,167,043 B2. Claims 1-11 of the issued patents explicitly disclose all of the elements of the instant claims, where noted differences are due to (1) the elements not necessarily being one-to-one verbatim recitations, and (2) the use of equivalent terms describing the elements.
Specifically, claim 1 of the instant application recites: “otherwise if the coding unit includes prediction sub-blocks and the dimension is greater than or equal to the second predetermined size threshold, the maximum filter length value is set to 5, otherwise the maximum filter length value is set to 3.” However, Zhu discloses otherwise if the coding unit includes prediction sub-blocks and the dimension is greater than or equal to the second predetermined size threshold, the maximum filter length value is set to 5, [See Zhu, ¶ 0832-0841 discloses a max filter length being set equal to 5.] otherwise the maximum filter length value is set to 3. [See Zhu, claims 7 and 8 disclose setting a maximum filter length set equal to 3 according to a dimension of adjacent transform blocks.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by the above issued patents to add the teachings of Zhu in order to enable selective filter length based on an edge type variable.
Claim 7 is rejected for analogous reasons presented for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected based on their dependence from claims 1 and 7, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486