DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/18/2025 partially fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file and certain citations have been indicated as considered, but other citations have been indicated as not considered using line-through.
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 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,201 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding the allowable feature of a closest neighboring reference line being used for prediction, determining whether a planar mode is available as an intra prediction mode or not, and whether other MPM candidates should be considered according to the MPM index.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,070,799 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding the allowable feature of a closest neighboring reference line being used for prediction, determining whether a planar mode is available as an intra prediction mode or not, and whether other MPM candidates should be considered according to the MPM index.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a prior art DVD or similar. Claims 15–20 are product-by-process claims. Such claims must be structurally distinguishable over the prior art without regard to the process by which they are made. In this case, because there is no patentable weight given to the method that generates the CRM, a prior art DVD or similar manufacture reads on the claimed manufacture. Accordingly, claims 15–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2020/0092544 A1), Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 3),” JVET-L1001-v5, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, 3–12 Oct. 2018 (herein “Bross”), and Misra (US 2013/0003829 A1).
Examiner notes the inventive elements appear to be that non-zero reference line (“NZRL”) coding excludes planar mode and that the MPM list should have the 5 entries recited in Applicant’s claim 6 of application no. 17/346,005. Examiner notes Applicant’s application no. 17/011,504 has this subject matter recited therein as well. Heo-JVET teaches generating an MPM list having 5 entries (as opposed to the usual 6) wherein DC mode is maintained and PLANAR mode is removed when the reference line is non-zero. Li teaches the angular MPM modes recited in original claim 6 of application no. 17/346,005 when the reference line is non-zero.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests a method of coding implemented by a coding device, comprising: when a value of an intra_luma_mpm_flag is true, determining whether a closest neighboring reference line to a current block is used for an intra prediction, the intra_luma_mpm_flag indicating whether an intra prediction mode of the current block is included in a set of most probable modes, wherein the set of most probable modes comprises 5 candidate intra prediction modes and Planar mode (Zhao, ¶¶ 0111–0112: teaches when the reference line is not the closest reference line, planar mode is not allowed, thus teaching the determination of whether the reference line is adjacent to the current block; Bross, Section 8.2.2 (page 70): teaches, using a logical “if” statement, checking the IntraLumaRefLineIdx value to see if it is zero; Examiner notes MRL is multi-reference line prediction, which means samples in non-adjacent reference lines are available for prediction; MRL is in contrast to using only the line of samples directly adjacent the current sample, i.e. the adjacent reference line, i.e. the zero-indexed reference line; Examiner notes that the closest line is indexed to 0, then the next one is 1, and so forth; see also Heo (under Conclusion Section of this Office Action), ¶ 0112: teaching the signaling to the decoder of the reference sample line used during encoding; Bross, Section 8.2.2 (page 70): teaches an intra_luma_mpm_flag is used to indicate whether the intra prediction mode is one of the MPM candidates in the candidate list; Zhao, ¶¶ 0111–0112: teaches that planar mode should be disabled in MRL which means there is no such restriction on planar mode otherwise; Examiner relies on the further teachings of Bross, which further illustrate the concept that the reference line index information is used to define how the MPM list is constructed; Bross, Section 8.2.2 (page 68): teaches logic that first determines what the IntraLumaRefLineIdx is before determining intra prediction mode); if the closest neighboring reference line to the current block is used for an intra prediction, determining whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is Planar mode (Examiner interprets this feature could mean simply determining the intra prediction mode, which by happenstance means determining whether any intra mode, including Planar mode, is used but also finds this feature could also mean first checking the reference line, then discretely checking whether planar mode is used, and then if not planar mode, then discretely checking what non-planar mode is used; It is the latter interpretation that is addressed by the further teachings of Misra; Otherwise, the teachings of Misra may be unnecessary to sustain a rejection under the first interpretation described, supra; Examiner further notes a strict interpretation of a specific order of syntax checking was found allowable in the parent case such that careful attention to language and interpretation is prudent; Bross, Section 8.2.2 (page 70): teaches that when the reference line index is not 0, planar mode is not in the MPM candidate list; Neither Bross nor Zhao appear to explicitly teach that using a flag for planar can signal whether planar is disabled or not; However, in the same field of endeavor, Misra, claim 1, page 45: teaches a discrete planar mode flag; Examiner finds that using flags to signal whether coding tools are disabled are obvious in the art; Here, because Zhao teaches the benefits of disabling planar mode for non-adjacent reference lines, the skilled artisan, in view of this teaching, would find it obvious to enable or disable planar mode using the flag taught by Misra); and if the closest neighboring reference line to the current block is not used for the intra prediction and the intra prediction mode of the current block is not a Planar mode, determining an index indicating which intra prediction mode in the 5 candidate intra prediction modes is used for the intra prediction mode of the current block (Zhao, ¶¶ 0111–0112: teaches when the reference line is not the closest reference line, planar mode is not allowed and teaches a reference line index is signaled in the bitstream to convey such information; Examiner finds that when Zhao teaches the signaling order such that the reference line index comes before the intra-prediction mode, Zhao means that certain information about the intra-prediction mode can be determined, such as whether certain modes are allowed; However, to help illustrate this concept, Examiner relies on the further teachings of Bross, which further illustrate the concept that the reference line index information is used to define how the MPM list is constructed; Bross, Section 8.4.2 (page 68): teaches logic that first determines what the IntraLumaRefLineIdx is before determining intra prediction mode; Bross teaches 5 candidate modes, but Examiner notes any number of candidate modes is obvious to the skilled artisan), wherein intra_luma_mpm_idx corresponds to the index with a value of 0 to 4 inclusive (Zhao, ¶ 0100: teaches the intra_luma_mpm_idx[x0][y0] syntax element is used to signal which mode in the MPM list is selected; Bross, Section 8.2.2 (pages 67–70): teaches the claimed syntax element is used to signal which mode in the MPM list is selected).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao, with those of Bross, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (multiple reference line intra prediction techniques) such that one wishing to practice the coding tools described therein would be led to their teachings and be able to combine the elements taught therein due to their obvious benefits to the signaling structure of the video coding standard and because such a combination amounts to a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield the predictable result of disabling INTRA_PLANAR mode when the reference line index is other than zero (zero indicates closest reference line). This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao and Bross used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao and Bross, with those of Misra, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (video coding techniques using bitstream signaling) such that one wishing to practice the coding tools described therein would be led to their teachings and be able to combine the elements taught therein due to their obvious benefits to the signaling structure of the video coding standard and because such a combination amounts to a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield the predictable result of disabling INTRA_PLANAR mode when the reference line index is other than zero (zero indicates closest reference line). This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao, Bross, and Misra used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein a flag intra_luma_not_planar_flag indicates whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is Planar mode (Examiner notes the earliest support claimed by Applicant appears to refer to the flag as intra_luma_planar_flag; In view of the teachings of Zhao regarding planar mode being disabled for MRL, Examiner finds it would have been obvious to set a planar flag to indicate it has been disabled in view of the teachings of Misra; Misra, claim 1, page 45: teaches a discrete planar mode flag).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests the method of claim 2, wherein a default value of the flag intra_luma_not_planar_flag is used to indicate that the intra prediction mode of the current block is not a Planar mode (Examiner notes the earliest support claimed by Applicant appears to refer to the flag as intra_luma_planar_flag; In view of the teachings of Zhao regarding planar mode being disabled for MRL, Examiner finds it would have been obvious to set a planar flag to indicate it has been disabled in view of the teachings of Misra; Misra, claim 1, page 45: teaches a discrete planar mode flag).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the index is represented as intra_luma_mpm_idx[x0][y0] (Zhao, ¶ 0100: teaches the claimed syntax element is used to signal which mode in the MPM list is selected; Bross, Section 8.2.2 (pages 67–70): teaches the claimed syntax element is used to signal which mode in the MPM list is selected).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the value of the intra_luma_mpm_flag is equal to a default value if the closest neighboring reference line to the current block is not used for the intra prediction (Bross, Section 8.2.2 (page 70): teaches the intra_luma_mpm_flag indicates that the intra prediction mode is set equal to the mode found in the MPM list identified by the MPM index).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein if a value of a reference index line of the current block is equal to 0, the closest neighboring reference line to the current block is used for the intra prediction (Examiner notes this limitation is saying the reference line index values start at zero for the closest line and increase as lines get further away from the current block; Zhao, ¶¶ 0111–0112: teaches when the reference line is not the closest reference line, i.e. nonzero reference line index, planar mode is not allowed and teaches a reference line index is signaled in the bitstream to convey such information).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhao, Bross, and Misra teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein a syntax structure of a flag intra_luma_not_planar_flag is:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
intra_luma_ref_idx[x0][y0]==0 indicating that the closest neighboring reference line to the current block is used for the intra prediction, and intra_luma_mpm_idx indicating which intra prediction mode in the set of most probable modes is used for the intra prediction mode of the current block (Bross, Section 8.2.2 (page 70): teaches the intra_luma_mpm_flag indicates that the intra prediction mode is set equal to the mode found in the MPM list identified by the MPM index; Combining Bross’s teachings regarding the syntax of the current standard (see section 7.3.4.6 in concert with the description in 8.2), and Zhao’s teachings that planar would be disabled for MRL, with Misra’s teachings of a discrete planar mode flag teaches or suggests that a discrete flag can be checked first to determine whether the mode is planar mode before checking whether another MPM mode is used).
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 3, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heo et al., “CE3-3.1.2: Harmonization on MPM list,” JVET-N0451-v3, 14th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 19–27 March 2019 (uploaded to public on 03/17/2019). The publication teaches generating an MPM list having 5 entries (as opposed to the usual 6) wherein DC mode is maintained and PLANAR mode is removed when the reference line is non-zero.
Li et al., “CE3-related: Harmonization on MPM list,” JVET-M0815-v2, 13th Meeting: Marrackech, MA, 9–18 Jan. 2019. Li teaches the MPM modes for non-zero reference line index includes vertical, horizontal, vertical -4, and vertical + 4 (Fig. 1).
Heo (US 2021/0368162 A1) teaches planar and DC modes are not used for MRL intra prediction (¶ 0152). Heo also explains the number of candidate modes can be 6 (¶ 0152).
Kwon (US 2016/0173874) teaches a planar mode flag (¶ 0165).
Yao et al., “JVET-M0210 VVC Draft Text,” 13th Meeting: Marrakech, MA Jan. 2019 teaches intra_luma_planar_flag[ x0 ][ y0 ] signaling and inferences.
Yao et al., “Non-CE3: Intra prediction information coding,” JVET-M0210_v3, 13th Meeting: Marrakech, MA Jan. 2019. Teaches introducing the intra_luma_planar_flag to address the fact that planar mode is not used for multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights