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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on August 15, 20225 has been entered and made of record.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-2 and 4 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claim 3 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
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 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).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined 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). Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,412,218 B2, referred as ‘218 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-4 is fully defined by claims 1-9 of the ‘218. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘218 discloses an image decoding method, comprising (see line 1):
decoding information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 2);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 3-4); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 5-7), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 8-14).
As to instant claim 2, claim 4 of the ‘218 patent discloses an image encoding method, comprising (see line 1):
determining information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 2);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 3-4); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 5-7), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see last 7 lines).
As to instant claim 3, claim 9 of the ‘218 patent discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the method comprising (see lines 1-3):
determining information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 4);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 5-6); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 7-9), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see last 9 lines).
As to instant claim 4, claim 1 of the ‘218 patent discloses an image decoding method, comprising (see line 1):
performing first filtering on pixels in a current block including deblocking filtering (see lines 3-4);
decoding information about second filtering range of the current block (see lines 5-7); and
performing second filtering based on the information about second filtering range, wherein the information about second filtering range includes information about a maximum value of pixel values in the current block, and wherein the second filtering remaps pixel values within the second filtering range to a new range (see last 7 lines).
Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11of U.S. Pat. No. 11,778,179 B2, referred as ‘179 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-4 is fully defined by claims 1-11 of the ‘179. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘179 discloses An image decoding method, comprising (see line 1):
decoding information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 1);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 3-4); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 5-8), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 11-15).
As to instant claim 2, claim 6 of the ‘218 patent discloses an image encoding method, comprising (see line 1):
determining information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 2);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 3-4); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 5-9), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 11-16).
As to instant claim 3, claim 11 of the ‘218 patent discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the method comprising (see lines 1-3):
determining information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 4);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 5-6); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 7-11), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 14-18).
As to instant claim 4, claim 1 of the ‘218 patent discloses an image decoding method, comprising (see line 1):
performing first filtering on pixels in a current block including deblocking filtering (see lines 3-4);
decoding information about second filtering range of the current block (see lines 2 & last 4 lines); and
performing second filtering based on the information about second filtering range, wherein the information about second filtering range includes information about a maximum value of pixel values in the current block, and wherein the second filtering remaps pixel values within the second filtering range to a new range (see lines 5-15).
Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,192,455 B2, referred as ‘455 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-4 is fully defined by claims 1-9 of the ‘455. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘455 discloses An image decoding method, comprising (see line 1):
decoding information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 1);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 3-4); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 5-8), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 10-15).
As to instant claim 2, claim 5 of the ‘455 patent discloses an image encoding method, comprising (see line 1):
determining information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 2);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 3-4); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 5-9), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 16-20).
As to instant claim 3, claim 9 of the ‘455 patent discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the method comprising (see lines 1-3):
determining information about first filtering range of a current block (see line 4);
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see lines 5-6); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see lines 7-11), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block (see lines 14-22).
As to instant claim 4, claim 1 of the ‘455 patent discloses an image decoding method, comprising (see line 1):
performing first filtering on pixels in a current block including deblocking filtering (see lines 3-4);
decoding information about second filtering range of the current block (see lines 2 & last 4 lines); and
performing second filtering based on the information about second filtering range, wherein the information about second filtering range includes information about a maximum value of pixel values in the current block, and wherein the second filtering remaps pixel values within the second filtering range to a new range (see last 10 lines).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee . (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2016/0286213 A1, Art of record IDS filed on 11/21/2024, referred as Lee hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Lee teaches an image decoding method comprising:
decoding information about first filtering range of a current block (see operations 61-62 of figure 6; paras. [0184 – 0185] (decoding offset value information of the current block) and paras. [0157] & [0160] (offset value is the band index information); figure 5, paras. [0157] & [0160]: band 32-39 having the index of 5 wherein 32 and 39 are a minimum value and a maximum value of the pixels in the block; thus, band index information is the so-called range));
performing first filtering on pixels in the current block based on the information about first filtering range (see filter 38 of figure 6, paras. [0135] & [0168]: performing filtering on edge pixels of the LCU (block) based on offset value (band index information)); and
performing second filtering including offset compensation (SAO) after the first filtering (see figure 3: filter 38 is prior to SAO performer 39), wherein the information about first filtering range includes information about a maximum value and a minimum value of pixel values in the current block ((see figure 5, paras. [0157] & [0160]: band 32-39 having the index of 5 wherein 32 and 39 are a minimum value and a maximum value of the pixels in the block)).
Regarding claim 3, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Lee teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (see paras. [0046] and [0394]).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
DMD
7/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights