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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 3/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Patent 12155864 only has claims 1-12 and there are no claims 13-22. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to first note that nowhere in the Double patent rejection that it states that Patent 12155864 has claims 13-22. The preliminary claims that were submitted 2/21/2024 were allowed on 7/17/2024. An issue notification was sent out 11/6/2024. Those claims were 12-23, while original claims 1-12 were cancelled. In addition, the rejection specifically identifies the claims in the non-final office action dated 12/16/2025. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the references fail to discloses encoding residual information comprising information on the transform coefficients. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim discloses in [0117], obtaining a sequence of syntax elements representing level information for a block of a residual sample. In block 1112, the electronic device 1421 performs adaptive binarization on values of the Absolute -3 portion of the sequence of syntax elements using a plurality of binarization tables, e.g. the VLC tables of CAVLC (FIG. 10), wherein the values of the Absolute -3 portion of the sequence of syntax elements are used as input values for the plurality of binarization tables. Kim further discloses encoding of the syntax element "Absolute-3". In known CABAC coding, the Exponential-Golomb-Rice coding method is used to encode the syntax element in [0193]. Therefore, Posita would have been readily understood that Kim discloses throughout the reference encoding residual information comprising information on the transform coefficients. In addition, Kim discloses encoding the context syntax elements into binary using a binarization process based on the maximum value and the rice parameter. Kim discloses in [0247], in response to determining that the binary symbol, employ rice parameter. Kim discloses in [0248], that the rice parameter may comprise a truncated version. Posita would understand that a truncated rice behavior is interpreted can be interpreted as a max value. Kim discloses in [0137], a binarization table to binarize a syntax element. Also, Misra discloses in [0053-0054], a prediction residual is provided to a transform module. The module may compress the residual and produce a transform signal. Therefore, Misra combined with Kim teaches encoding residual information comprising information on the transform coefficients. Rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that Posita would have noted that Misra does not disclose determining a rice parameter based on a color index. The examiner disagrees. Kim discloses [0206] that rice parameter is based on color information. Therefore, combined with Mira’s color index, Posita would understand that the references do indeed disclose determining a rice parameter based on a color index. Rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that Posita would have noted that Misra does not disclose determining a rice parameter based on a current coefficient scanning position. The examiner disagrees. Kim discloses [0113-0115], that rice parameter is based on the scanning positions. Therefore, combined with Mira’s color index, Posita would understand that the references does indeed disclose determining a rice parameter based on a current coefficient scanning position Rejection is maintained.
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, 4-7,10-13, 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-14, 16-18, and 20-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12155864 (18374648). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 14-17, 19-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11240533 (17368005). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11778232 (17562227). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130188683 A1-Kim et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kim”), in view of US 20160234498 A1-Misra et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Misra”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for encoding an image by an encoding apparatus (Fig. 6), the method comprising:
deriving residual samples for a current block of an image ([0017]);
deriving transform coefficients in the current block based on the residual samples ([0006]); and
encoding residual information comprising information on the transform coefficients ([0193], encoding; Kim discloses in [0117], obtaining a sequence of syntax elements representing level information for a block of a residual sample. In block 1112, the electronic device 1421 performs adaptive binarization on values of the Absolute -3 portion of the sequence of syntax elements using a plurality of binarization tables, e.g. the VLC tables of CAVLC (FIG. 10), wherein the values of the Absolute -3 portion of the sequence of syntax elements are used as input values for the plurality of binarization tables. Kim further discloses encoding of the syntax element "Absolute-3". In known CABAC coding, the Exponential-Golomb-Rice coding method is used to encode the syntax element in [0193]),
wherein the encoding of the residual information comprises:
deriving a maximum value for a number of context-coded bins for context syntax elements for the current block ([0214], max bins; [0217]);
determining a Rice parameter based at least on a color component index, a luma position, and a current coefficient scanning position ([0206], wherein initializing rice parameter based on color information, luma information, and a combination; and
encoding the context syntax elements into binary values using a binarization process based on the maximum value and the Rice parameter ([0010]); and
generating a bitstream comprising residual information on the current block, the residual information comprising the encoded binary values of the context syntax elements ([0095], generating a bitstream).
Kim fails to disclose determining a Rice parameter based at least on a color component index, a luma position, and a current coefficient scanning position
However, in the same field of endeavor, Misra discloses deriving residual samples for a current block of an image ([0053]), deriving transform coefficients in the current block based on the residual samples ([0053]), encoding residual information comprising information on the transform coefficients ([0054], wherein provided to an entropy coding module), determining a Rice parameter ([0181]) based at least on a color component index ([0160], wherein the array index cIdx specifies an indicator for the colour component;, a luma position ([0216], luma location), and a current coefficient scanning position ([0191], z scan order)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to disclose determining a Rice parameter based at least on a color component index, a luma position, and a current coefficient scanning position as taught by Misra, to improve coding efficiency ([0312], Misra).
Regarding claim 2, Misra discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the luma position corresponds to the top-left sample of a current luma transform block relative to the top-left luma sample of the image ([0216]).
Regarding claim 3, Misra discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the Rice parameter is further based on at least one of a binary logarithm of the width of the current block, or a binary logarithm of the height of the current block (table 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the maximum value is set based on a size of the current block ([0128], block size).
Regarding claim 7, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 7(decoding performs the opposite of encoding).
Regarding claim 8, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 13, wherein one or more processors (Kim, [0251]), and memory (Kim, [0253]).
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11-12, 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patent, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights