DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-16 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.
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 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,192,523 B2 (referred as ‘523 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-16 is fully defined by claims 1-16 of the ‘523 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘523 patent discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (see line 1):
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see lines 3-5: reference picture and current block are neighboring; reference picture is inherently identified in order to perform prediction for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see lines 3-5);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 6-8);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 9-12);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 13-16);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 17-19); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 20-21).
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein in response to the decoded information indicating that the transform process is not performed, the inverse transform on the current block is skipped (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 3 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein in response to the decoded information indicating that the transform process is performed, the inverse transform on the current block is performed (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 4, claim 4 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein in response to a value of transform_skip_flag being 1, the transform process is not performed and is skipped on the current block, and in response to the value of transform_skip_flag being 0, the transform process is performed on the current block (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 5, claim 5 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein the information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied comprises a flag indicating whether to perform the inverse transform on the current block based on the first block size (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 6, claim 6 of the ‘523 patent discloses further comprising performing an inverse transform on the current block according to the current block size, in response to the current block size satisfying a condition in which the skip of the transform process is not applied (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 7 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein the skip of the transform process is applied when the current block size is larger than 4x4 pixels (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 8 of the ‘523 patent discloses method of encoding an image, the method comprising:
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see lines 3-5: reference picture and current block are neighboring; reference picture is inherently identified in order to perform prediction for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see lines 3-5);
generating a residual block for the current block by subtracting the prediction block from the current block (see lines 6-8); and
encoding the residual block (see line 9),
wherein the encoding of the residual block comprises (see line 10)
determining a first block size and encoding information of the first block size (see lines 11-12);
determining whether to apply the skip of the transform process on the current block based on a comparison of the first block size with a current block size (see lines 13-15); and
performing or skipping a transform on the current block to encode the residual block (see line 16).
Regarding instant claim 9, claim 10 of the ‘523 patent discloses comprising encoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied to the current block (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 10, claim 9 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein in response to a value of transform_skip_flag being 1, the transform process is not performed and is skipped on the current block, and in response to the value of transform_skip_flag being 0, the transform process is performed on the current block (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 11 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein in response to a determination that the skip of the transform process is applied to the current block, the information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied to the current block indicates that the transform on the current block is skipped (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 12 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein in response to a determination that the skip of the transform process is not applied to the current block, the information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied to the current block indicates that the transform on the current block is performed (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 13 of the ‘523 patent discloses further comprising performing the transform on the current block according to the current block size, in response to the current block size satisfying a condition in which the skip of the transform process is not applied (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 14 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein the information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied comprises a flag indicating whether to perform the transform on the current block based on the first block size (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 15 of the ‘523 patent discloses wherein the skip of the transform process is applied when the current block size is larger than 4x4 pixels (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 16 of the ‘523 patent discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream which is generated by an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising:
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see lines 4-6: reference picture and current block are neighboring; reference picture is inherently identified in order to perform prediction for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see lines 4-6);
generating a residual block for the current block by subtracting the prediction block from the current block (see lines 7-9); and
encoding the residual block (see line 10),
wherein the encoding of the residual block comprises (see line 11)
determining a first block size and encoding information of the first block size (see lines 12-14);
determining whether to apply the skip of the transform process on the current block based on a comparison of the first block size with a current block size (see lines 15-17; and
performing or skipping a transform on the current block to encode the residual block (see lines 18-19).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,765,388 B2 (referred as ‘388 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-16 is fully defined by claims 1-16 of the ‘388 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘388 patent discloses a method of decoding an image (see lines 1-2), the method comprising:
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see lines 3-6: it is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to generating a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see lines 3-6: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 7-9);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 10-13);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 14-17);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 18-20); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 21-22).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-16 of the ‘388 patent for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,375,237 B2 (referred as ‘237 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-16 is fully defined by claims 1-16 of the ‘237 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘237 patent discloses a method of decoding an image (see lines 1-2), the method comprising:
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see line 3 and last 3 lines: it is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see line 3 and last 3 lines: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 4-6);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 7-10);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 11-14);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 15-17); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 18-19).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-16 of the ‘237 patent for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,681,381 B2 (referred as ‘381 patent hereinafter). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-16 is fully defined by claims of the ‘381 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘381 patent discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (see lines 1-2):
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see line 3: it is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to generate a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see line 3: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 4-6);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 7-9);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 10-13);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 14-16); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 17-18).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-16 of the ‘381 patent for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,368,102 (referred as ‘102 patent hereinafter). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-16 is fully defined by the ‘102 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘102 patent discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (see line 1):
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see line 2 and last 2 lines: t is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to generate a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see line 2 and last 2 lines: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 3-12);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 8-12);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 13-16);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 17-18); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 18-20).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-19 of the ‘102 patent for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,368,103 (referred as ‘103 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-16 is fully defined by the ‘103 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘103 patent discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (see line 1);
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see line 2 and last 2 lines: it is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see line 2 and last 2 lines: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 3-12);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 8-12);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 13-16);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 17-18); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 19-20).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-19 of the ‘103 patent for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,368,101 (referred as ‘101 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-19 is fully defined by the ‘101 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘101 patent discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (see line 1);
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see line 2: it is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to generate a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see line 2: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 3-12);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 8-12);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 13-16);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 17-18); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 19-20).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-19 of the ‘101 patent for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,123,047 (referred as ‘047 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims 1-19 is fully defined by the ‘047 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘047 patent discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (see line 1);
identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block (see line 2 and 2 lines before last 2 lines: it is inherently included “identifying a reference sample neighboring a current block” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
performing prediction based on the reference sample to generate a prediction block for the current block (see line 2 and 2 lines before last 2 lines: it is inherently included “reference sample” in order to perform prediction and generate a prediction block for current block);
decoding information of a first block size to determine the first block size, wherein the first block size is determined by an encoder (see lines 3-13);
decoding information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied, in response to the comparison of the first block size with the current block size (see lines 9-13);
determining whether to perform an inverse transform on the current block based on the decoded information indicating whether the skip of the transform process is applied (see lines 14-17);
performing or skipping the inverse transform on the current block to generate a residual block for the current block (see lines 18-19); and
reconstructing the current block by adding the prediction block and the residual block (see lines 20-21).
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-16 is fully defined by patented claims 2-19 of the ‘047 patent 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 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 at 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 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.
DMD
7/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights