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 .
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 1-17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17, 19, and 20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are directed to a video decoding method which corresponds to the video encoding method claim in the instant application.
Instant Claim 1, 18/952,856
Patent Claim 1, US 12,184,866
A method of encoding video data, comprising:
A method of decoding video data, comprising:
determining a first syntax element for a first set of palette mode coding units at a first coding level, wherein the first syntax element indicates whether a current coding unit contains at least one escape coded sample;
receiving, from a bitstream, a first syntax element associated with a first set of palette mode coding units at a first coding level, wherein the first syntax element indicates whether a current coding unit contains at least one escape coded sample;
in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element has a first predefine value:
choosing a first binarization process for samples of the first set of palette mode coding units;
encoding, into bitstream, the samples of the first set of palette mode coding units using the first binarization process;
in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element has a first predefined value:
choosing a first binarization process for samples of the first set of palette mode coding units;
decoding, from the bitstream, the samples of the first set of palette mode coding units using the first binarization process;
in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element does not have the first predefined value:
choosing a second binarization process for samples of the first set of palette mode coding units, the second binarization process being different from the first binarization process; and
encoding, into the bitstream, the samples of the first set of palette mode coding units using the second binarization process.
in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element does not have the first predefined value:
choosing a second binarization process for samples of the first set of palette mode coding units, the second binarization process being different from the first binarization process; and
decoding, from the bitstream, the samples of the first set of palette mode coding units using the second binarization process.
Instant claims 2-17, 19, and 20 correspond, respectively, to claims, 2-17, 19, and 20 of US 12,284,866, and are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 2-17, 19, and 20, respectively, of the ‘866 patent.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,866 in view of Pu, US 2016/0227239 A1.
Regarding claim 18, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 16, wherein each of the first coding level and the second coding level is one selected from the group consisting of sequence parameter set, picture parameter set, adaptation parameter set, slice, tile, coding tree unit, and coding unit.
Pu discloses in an analogous art in generating and transmitting a PLT_Mode_Flag indicating whether or not palette-based coding mode is used at the level indicated. See [0143]. In this context, Pu discloses that this flag may be transmitted at a slice level, sequence parameter set level, PPS-level, slice-level, or coding unit (CU) level. See [0144]-[0145].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to make use of a flag at a slice, PPS, SPS, or VPS level, indicating whether a certain type of binarization coding is performed within the given slice, PPS, SPS, or VPS, and again signaling for each palette-coded CU therein whether said type of binarization is performed. Doing so would enable more efficient signaling of entropy coding type to be performed, with coding specified at lower levels, e.g. a CU, only as needed, in line with hierarchical prediction used in HEVC and more recent video coding standards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose, suggest, or make obvious:
determining a first syntax element for a first set of palette mode coding units at a first coding level, wherein the first syntax element indicates whether a current coding unit contains at least one escape coded sample;
in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element has a first predefined
value:
choosing a first binarization process for samples of the first set of palette mode
coding units;
in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element does not have the first
predefined value:
choosing a second binarization process for samples of the first set of palette mode coding units, the second binarization process being different from the first binarization
process; and
The closest prior art, Seregin, US 2017/0085891 A1 discloses controlling the type of binarization process used to encode a palette mode coding unit based on an extended_precision_processing_flag, as disclosed in [0193]. While a “palette_escape_val_present_flag” is also well known in the context palette mode video coding, nowhere does the art disclose or suggest to base a type of binarization process applied to a palette mode coding unit on the value of this flag. See, for instance, [0480] in “Zhu”, US 2022/046255 A1:
[0480] palette_escape_val_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that the current coding unit contains at least one escape coded sample. escape_val_present_flag equal to 0 specifies that there are no escape coded samples in the current coding unit. When not present, the value of palette_escape_val_present_flag is inferred to be equal to 1.
A further search did not yield prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425