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 .
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,192,479 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an initial right shift parameter, wherein the initial right shift parameter is a uniform offset parameter, and the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of the prediction value, wherein the offset parameter is set to be 6.
Claim 1 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an initial right shift parameter, wherein the initial right shift parameter is a uniform offset parameter, and the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of the prediction value, wherein the offset parameter is set to be 6.
Claim 1 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 3 of reference patent discloses determining the initial right shift parameters corresponding to MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when one of initial right shift parameters is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 3 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 3 of reference patent discloses determining the initial right shift parameters corresponding to MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when one of initial right shift parameters is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 3 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 5 of reference patent discloses after determining the initial right shift parameters corresponding to MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter, further comprising: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter, an initial weight matrix and an initial bias matrix.
Claim 3 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 6 of reference patent discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an initial right shift parameter, wherein the initial right shift parameter is an uniform offset parameter, and the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of the prediction value, wherein the offset parameter is set to be 6.
Claim 6 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 6 of reference patent discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an initial right shift parameter, wherein the initial right shift parameter is an uniform offset parameter, and the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of the prediction value, wherein the offset parameter is set to be 6.
Claim 6 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 7 of reference patent discloses determining the initial right shift parameters corresponding to MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when one of the initial right shift parameters is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 7 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 7 of reference patent discloses determining the initial right shift parameters corresponding to MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when one of the initial right shift parameters is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 7 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 9 of reference patent discloses after determining the initial right shift parameters corresponding to MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter, further comprising: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter, an initial weight matrix and an initial bias matrix.
Claim 10 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, application claim 11 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-16, 18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,146,798 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: before coding processing is performed according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, setting initial right shift parameters corresponding to different sizes and different MIP mode numbers as an uniform offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of a predicted value; and when coding processing is performed according to the MIP mode, performing coding processing according to the offset parameter.
claim 8 of reference patent discloses the offset parameter is set to be 6.
Claims 1 and 8 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: before coding processing is performed according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, setting initial right shift parameters corresponding to different sizes and different MIP mode numbers as an uniform offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of a predicted value; and when coding processing is performed according to the MIP mode, performing coding processing according to the offset parameter.
Claim 1 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 2 of reference patent discloses setting the initial right shift parameters corresponding to the different sizes and the different MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when an initial right shift parameter is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all predicted values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 2 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 2 of reference patent discloses setting the initial right shift parameters corresponding to the different sizes and the different MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when an initial right shift parameter is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all predicted values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 2 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 3 of reference patent discloses after setting the initial right shift parameters corresponding to the different sizes and the different MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter, the method further comprises: modifying an initial weight matrix and an initial bias matrix according to a preset calculation rule to obtain a modified weight matrix and a modified bias matrix, the initial weight matrix and the initial bias matrix corresponding to an initial right shift parameter subjected to unification modification; and performing coding processing according to the offset parameter, the modified weight matrix and the modified bias matrix.
Claim 3 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 9 of reference patent discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: before decoding processing is performed according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, setting initial right shift parameters corresponding to different sizes and different MIP mode numbers as an uniform offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of a predicted value; and when decoding processing is performed according to the MIP mode, performing decoding processing according to the offset parameter.
claim 13 of reference patent discloses the offset parameter is set to be 6.
Claims 9 and 13 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 9 of reference patent discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: before decoding processing is performed according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, setting initial right shift parameters corresponding to different sizes and different MIP mode numbers as an uniform offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits of a predicted value; and when decoding processing is performed according to the MIP mode, performing decoding processing according to the offset parameter.
Claim 9 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 10 of reference patent discloses setting the initial right shift parameters corresponding to the different sizes and the different MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when an initial right shift parameter is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all predicted values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 10 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 10 of reference patent discloses setting the initial right shift parameters corresponding to the different sizes and the different MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter comprises: when an initial right shift parameter is different from the offset parameter, modifying the initial right shift parameter to the offset parameter, to enable the numbers of right shifting bits of all predicted values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers to be the same.
Claim 10 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 11 of reference patent discloses after setting the initial right shift parameters corresponding to the different sizes and the different MIP mode numbers as the uniform offset parameter, the method further comprises: modifying an initial weight matrix and an initial bias matrix according to a preset calculation rule to obtain a modified weight matrix and a modified bias matrix, the initial weight matrix and the initial bias matrix corresponding to an initial right shift parameter subjected to unification modification; and performing decoding processing according to the offset parameter, the modified weight matrix and the modified bias matrix.
Claim 11 of reference patent disclose all the limitations of the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, application claim 11 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 of copending Application No. 19/220,676 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 3 of reference application discloses the offset parameter is 6.
Claims 1 and 3 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 4 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 4 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 5 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 7 of reference application discloses the offset parameter is 6.
Claims 5 and 7 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 5 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 5 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 5 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter of an uniform number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value for all block sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 8 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 8 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, application claim 11 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 of copending Application No. 19/356,335 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 3 of reference application discloses the offset parameter is 6.
Claims 1 and 3 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 4 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the same offset parameter for all sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 4 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 5 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 6 of reference application discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 8 of reference application discloses the offset parameter is 6.
Claims 6 and 8 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 6 of reference application discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 6 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 6 of reference application discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 6 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 9 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the same offset parameter for all sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 10 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 10 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, application claim 11 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 of copending Application No. 19/356,327 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter for all block sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 3 of reference application discloses the offset parameter is 6.
Claims 1 and 3 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 4 of reference application discloses the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 4 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter for all block sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 4 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter for all block sizes and all MIP modes are the same
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 5 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 6 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter for all block sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 8 of reference application discloses the offset parameter is 6.
Claims 6 and 8 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 9 of reference application discloses the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value.
Claim 9 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 6 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter for all block sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 6 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 6 of reference application discloses a picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and when the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter for all block sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 6 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 10 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 10 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, application claim 11 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/356,349 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference application discloses a picture coding method, applied to an encoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode is applied for the current block, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter is 6.
Claim 1 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 2 of reference application discloses the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of a prediction value of the current block.
Claim 2 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 3 of reference application discloses numbers of right shifting bits for calculation of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 3 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 4 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the same offset parameter for all sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 4 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 5 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 5 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 6 of reference application discloses A picture decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block; and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode is applied for the current block, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter, wherein the offset parameter is 6.
Claim 6 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 7 of reference application discloses the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of a prediction value of the current block.
Claim 7 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 8 of reference application discloses numbers of right shifting bits for calculation of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP modes are the same.
Claim 8 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 9 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the same offset parameter for all sizes and all MIP modes.
Claim 9 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 10 of reference application discloses performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter and a weight matrix.
Claim 10 of reference application discloses all the limitation in the application claim. Thus, nonstatutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, application claim 11 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pfaff et al. (US 2022/0103813 A1).
Consider claim 1, Pfaff teaches a picture coding method, applied to an encoder ([0060] and Fig. 2 show an encoder) and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block (signal a set-selective syntax element that indicates whether the predetermined block is to be predicted using one of a first set of intra-prediction modes. If not, the apparatus is configured to signal a further index in the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction. [0488], [0499], and Fig. 16); and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter (the apparatus is configured to signal a further index in the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighbourhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting samples of the predetermined block 18 on the basis of the prediction vector. [0488], [0499], and Fig. 16; the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]), wherein the offset parameter is 6 (the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]).
Consider claim 2, Pfaff teaches the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value (The values offset.sub.i,j and scale.sub.i,j are themselves integer values. For example these integers can represent fixed-point numbers that can each be stored with a fixed number of bits, for example 8 bits, or for example the same number of bits n_bits that is used to store the values Ĉ.sub.i,j. [0350] – [0362]).
Consider claim 3, Pfaff teaches numbers of right shifting bits for calculation of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers are the same (offset.sub.i,j and/or scale.sub.i,j are constant, i.e. identical, for all matrix-based intra prediction modes. Additionally or Alternatively, it is possible, that offset.sub.i,j and/or scale.sub.i,j are constant, i.e. identical, for all block sizes. [0350] – [0362]).
Consider claim 4, Pfaff teaches performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the same offset parameter for all sizes and all MIP mode numbers (the apparatus is configured to signal a further index in the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighbourhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting samples of the predetermined block 18 on the basis of the prediction vector. [0488], [0499], and Fig. 16; the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]).
Consider claim 5, Pfaff teaches performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter, an initial weight matrix and an initial bias matrix (the apparatus is configured to signal a further index in the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighbourhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting samples of the predetermined block 18 on the basis of the prediction vector. [0488], [0499], and Fig. 16; the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]. mWeight [i] is considered as the weight matrix, “6” is considered as the offset parameter, and pTemp[0] is considered as the bias matrix. See [0378] – [0384] for the description of pTemp[0]).
Consider claim 6, Pfaff teaches a picture decoding method ([0498] and Fig. 15 show a decoding method), applied to a decoder ([0400] and Fig. 12 show a decoder) and comprising: determining a mode parameter of a current block (If the set-selective syntax element indicates 4155 that the predetermined block is not to be predicted using one of the first set of intra-prediction modes, the method 4000 comprises deriving 4250 a further index from the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing 4350 a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighborhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting 4450 samples of the predetermined block on the basis of the prediction vector. [0498], [0422], and Fig. 12, Fig. 15); and in response to a determination that the mode parameter indicates that a prediction value of the current block is determined according to a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) mode, performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on an offset parameter (the method 4000 comprises deriving 4250 a further index from the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing 4350 a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighbourhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting 4450 samples of the predetermined block on the basis of the prediction vector. [0498], [0422], and Fig. 12, Fig. 15; the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]), wherein the offset parameter is 6 (the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]).
Consider claim 7, Pfaff teaches the offset parameter indicates a number of right shifting bits for calculation of the prediction value (The values offset.sub.i,j and scale.sub.i,j are themselves integer values. For example these integers can represent fixed-point numbers that can each be stored with a fixed number of bits, for example 8 bits, or for example the same number of bits n_bits that is used to store the values Ĉ.sub.i,j. [0350] – [0362]).
Consider claim 8, Pfaff teaches numbers of right shifting bits for calculation of all prediction values corresponding to all sizes and all MIP mode numbers are the same (offset.sub.i,j and/or scale.sub.i,j are constant, i.e. identical, for all matrix-based intra prediction modes. Additionally or Alternatively, it is possible, that offset.sub.i,j and/or scale.sub.i,j are constant, i.e. identical, for all block sizes. [0350] – [0362]).
Consider claim 9, Pfaff teaches performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the same offset parameter for all sizes and all MIP mode numbers (the method 4000 comprises deriving 4250 a further index from the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing 4350 a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighbourhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting 4450 samples of the predetermined block on the basis of the prediction vector. [0498], [0422], and Fig. 12, Fig. 15; the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]).
Consider claim 10, Pfaff teaches performing prediction on the current block according to the MIP mode based on the offset parameter comprises: performing prediction on the current block according to the offset parameter, an initial weight matrix and an initial bias matrix (the method 4000 comprises deriving 4250 a further index from the data stream which indicates a predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode out of a second set of matrix-based intra-prediction modes by computing 4350 a matrix-vector product between a vector derived from reference samples in a neighbourhood of the predetermined block and a predetermined prediction matrix associated with the predetermined matrix-based intra-prediction mode so as to obtain a prediction vector, and predicting 4450 samples of the predetermined block on the basis of the prediction vector. [0498], [0422], and Fig. 12, Fig. 15; the matrix-based intra prediction samples predMip[x][y] are derived based on the equation shown in [0389], where “6” considered as the offset parameter. [0385] – [0398]. mWeight [i] is considered as the weight matrix, “6” is considered as the offset parameter, and pTemp[0] is considered as the bias matrix. See [0378] – [0384] for the description of pTemp[0]).
Consider claim 11, claim 11 recites a decoder (a decoding apparatus [0400] and Fig. 12), comprising a processor (a processor [0071], [0509] – [0510]), a memory storing an instruction executable for the processor (a non-transitory storage unit storing instructions [0071], [0509] – [0510]), wherein the processor is configured to perform the method recited in claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Consider claim 12, application claim 12 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 13, application claim 13 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 14, application claim 14 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 15, application claim 15 recites the decoder that implements the decoding method of application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 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 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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486