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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 04 February 2025 for application number 18/948,836. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 2/13/25.
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 2-7, 10-15, 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,701,385. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 2, ‘385 discloses a method of video decoding, the method comprising: receiving a coded video bitstream; determining whether a reference block for a current block is located in a different coding tree unit (CTU) than a CTU of the current block, the reference block and the current block being located in a picture in the coded video bitstream; when the reference block is determined to be located in the different CTU, determining whether the CTU of the current block and a reference sample memory have a same size; when the CTU of the current block and the reference sample memory are determined to have the same size,(i) determining a first area in the CTU of the current block, the first area being collocated with a second area in the different CTU, a first position of the first area in the CTU of the current block being collocated with a second position of the second area in the different CTU, first coordinates associated with the first position and second coordinates associated with the second position differing by a CTU width in an x-coordinate direction;(ii) determining, based on a decoding status of the first area, whether a memory location of the reference sample memory for the reference block is available; and (iii) when the memory location is determined to be available, retrieving, from the memory location, one or more samples to decode the current block (claim 1); and when the CTU of the current block and the reference sample memory are determined to have different sizes, determining whether the CTU size of the CTU of the current block is smaller than the reference sample memory; and when the CTU size of the CTU of the current block is determined to be smaller than the size of the reference sample memory, determining whether a distance between the different CTU of the reference block and the CTU of the current block is smaller than a threshold, the threshold being based on a ratio of the size of the reference sample memory and the CTU size of the CTU of the current block; and when the distance is determined to be smaller than the threshold, retrieving one or more samples from the memory location to decode the current block (claim 6).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claim 2. ‘385 further discloses wherein the first area is the current block, and the second area is the reference block (claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claim 2. ‘385 further discloses wherein each of the first area and the second area has a size that is 2MX2N (claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claims 2 and 4. ‘385 further discloses wherein M=6 and N=6 (claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claim 2. ‘385 further discloses wherein the memory location is determined to be available when the decoding status of the first area indicates that the first area does not include at least one block that is at least partially decoded (claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claim 2. ‘385 further discloses wherein the CTU of the current block and the reference sample memory are determined to have different sizes, and the method includes determining the threshold as ((the size of the reference sample memory/the CTU size) -1) x (the CTU width) (claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8 and 16, none of the references, alone or in combination, discloses further comprising: when the distance is determined to be greater than or equal to the threshold, determining a third area in the CTU of the current block that is collocated with a fourth area in the different CTU; determining, based on a decoding status of the third area, whether the memory location of the reference sample memory for the reference block is available; and when the memory location for the reference block is determined to be available, retrieving, from the memory location, one or more samples to decode the current block.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, none of the references, alone or in combination, discloses wherein the determining whether the memory location of the reference sample memory for the reference block is available comprises: inputting x and y coordinates of the current block (xCb, yCb); inputting a neighboring luma location (((xCb + (mvLO[0] >> 4) + (1 << CtbLog2SizeY)) (CtbLog2SizeY-1)) « (CtbLog2SizeY-1), ((yCb + (mvLO[1] >> 4))(CtbLog2SizeY-1)) «(CtbLog2SizeY-1)), CtbLog2SizeY indicating a CTU size in a Log2 domain, mvLO[0] and mvLO[1] indicating x and y components of a block vector mvLO, respectively; and when an output is false, determining that samples of the reference block are available.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
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.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486