DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
2. This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/225,203, filed on Jul. 24, 2023, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/523,025, filed on Nov. 10, 2021 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,902,509, issued on Feb. 13, 2024), which is a Continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/336,219, filed on Mar. 25, 2019 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,202,063, issued on Dec. 14, 2021), which was filed as the U.S. National Stage Application of PCT International Application No. PCT/KR2017/010469, filed on Sep. 22, 2017, which claims priority under 35 USC 119 (a) and 365 (b) to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2016-0127874, filed on Oct. 4, 2016, in the Republic of Korea, the entire contents of all these applications being hereby expressly incorporated by reference into the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 11/14/2024, 02/12/2025, 07/18/2025, 08/18/2025, and 10/27/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected on are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S Patent No. 12184838 (U.S Application 18/225,203) in view of Xu et al. (US2017/0272757A1) (hereinafter Xu). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Please see further example below. Differences are bolded in the following comparison table.
Current application 18/947,973
Conflict application 18/225,203
Claim 1
Claim 1
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block;
deriving reference samples for an intra prediction on the current block, wherein the reference samples include at least one of left reference samples or upper reference samples; and
generating a predicted block by performing the intra prediction on the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples, wherein based on that the intra prediction mode of the current block is a DC mode and a height of the current block is equal to a width of the current block,
the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the left reference samples adjacent to a left boundary of the current block and the upper reference samples adjacent to an upper boundary of the current block,
wherein based on that the intra prediction mode of the current block is the DC mode and the height of the current block is smaller than the width of the current block,
the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the upper reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block, and
wherein the average value is calculated by using a shift operation,
wherein deriving the reference samples comprises: determining an availability of a reference sample neighboring the current block; based on that the reference sample is determined to be not available, substituting the reference sample which is not available using available reference sample in a predefined direction.
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block;
deriving reference samples for an intra prediction on the current block, wherein the reference samples include at least one of left reference samples or upper reference samples; and
generating a predicted block by performing the intra prediction on the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples, wherein based on that the intra prediction mode of the current block is a DC mode and a height of the current block is equal to a width of the current block,
the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the left reference samples adjacent to a left boundary of the current block and the upper reference samples adjacent to an upper boundary of the current block,
wherein based on that the intra prediction mode of the current block is the DC mode and the height of the current block is greater than the width of the current block,
the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the left reference samples adjacent to the left boundary of the current block, and
wherein based on that the intra prediction mode of the current block is the DC mode and the height of the current block is smaller than the width of the current block, the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the upper reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block.
The conflicting application discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of “the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the upper reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block, and wherein the average value is calculated by using a shift operation.”
However, Xu from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the intra prediction of the current block is performed by using an average value of the upper reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block, and wherein the average value is calculated by using a shift operation, wherein deriving the reference samples comprises: determining an availability of a reference sample neighboring the current block; based on that the reference sample is determined to be not available, substituting the reference sample which is not available using available reference sample in a predefined direction (e.g., see paragraphs 0046, 0047, 0065: weighted average; Fig. 3, paragraphs 0066, 0067: shift or move pixels; Figs. 2, 4, paragraphs 0071, 0072: upper reference samples 422 and upper edge 412).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the conflicting application to add the teachings of Xu as above, in order to provide improved method and apparatus for video coding to generate an intra predictor of the current block based on the selected reference pixel set and an intra prediction mode of the current block (see paragraph 0013: Xu).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
6. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent Application No. 18/947,973. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although slightly different words are used within the claim language, however, they cover the same or similar scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and are also an obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
7. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent No. 112184838 (US Patent Application No. 18/225,203). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although slightly different words are used within the claim language, however, they cover the same or similar scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and are also an obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
8. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent No. 1102509 (US Patent Application No. 17/525,025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although slightly different words are used within the claim language, however, they cover the same or similar scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and are also an obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
9. Similarly, independent claim 1 of current application is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 11202063 (Application No. 16/336,219).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants of each other. Furthermore, they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-10 will be allowable if Double Patenting Rejection is overcome by filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights