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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/964,113 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/964,122 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/964,126 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/964,129 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,612 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,561 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,573 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/971,587 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 recite the limitations “identifying respective partitioning unit of a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image based on a size of the respective partitioning unit; and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. The examiner notes, in the applicant’s remarks filed 2/19/2026, the applicant cites [0573] and [0574] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing said limitations, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. [0573] teaches faces of an image when projected onto a shape such as a cube may be of different sizes. This teaching however does not recite a step of determining the size of the face(s) for performing padding on prediction units (PU) which constitute the face(s) based on a size of the prediction unit. Further, [0574] teaches different resizing processes may be performed on each respective face of the projected image. This teaching also does not recite a step of determining the size of a prediction unit (or a face of an image) for performing padding on the prediction unit (or face).
Claims 4-6 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (He) (US 2019/0215532) in view of Hannuksela et al. (Hannuksela) (US 2014/0168362), and further in view of in Sim et al. (Sim) (US 2018/0262762).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method of decoding an image with a decoding apparatus, comprising:
receiving a bitstream in which the image is encoded ([0084], an encoded picture is received at a decoder);
determining a current block included in the image (FIGs. 10 and 11, [0112], current blocks B0 and B1);
obtaining information on a residual block for the current block from the bitstream ([0107], a reference picture index is used to signal a picture for interframe prediction (i.e. image transformation and residual image generation) (see [0723] of the applicant’s originally filed specification));
generating a residual block for the current block based on the information on the residual block ([0108], prediction residuals are generated using the reference image signaled by the reference picture index);
reconstructing the current block based on the residual block to generate a reconstructed image ([0108], residuals are added to the prediction block to generate a reconstructed block); and
performing a image processing on the reconstructed image based on image processing information included in the bitstream ([0161], sample adaptive offset (SAO) filtering is performed using SAO parameters encoded in the bitstream; [0144], [0155], padding of an image is performed using sample position information),
wherein the residual block is added to a prediction block corresponding to the residual block ([0108], residuals are added to the prediction block to generate a reconstructed block),
wherein the image processing comprises padding at least one region to the reconstructed image ([0142], [0155], padding of a reference image is performed),
wherein the padding is performed by selecting one among a plurality of padding methods ([0121], [0133], geometry or repetitive padding may be applied).
He is silent about wherein the padding is performed by selecting one among a plurality of padding methods using selection information obtained from the image processing information, and wherein the image processing information is included in a supplement enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the plurality of padding methods comprises a first padding method which uses a same sample value for the region to be padded, and wherein the same sample value is determined based on information included in the image processing information; and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying respective partitioning unit of a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image based on a size of the respective partitioning unit; and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit.
Hunneksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the padding is performed by selecting one among a plurality of padding methods using selection information obtained from the image processing information ([0746], the encoder encodes an applied padding method), and wherein the image processing information is included in a supplement enhancement information (SEI) message ([0225], SEI messages are signaled, [0752], [0753], the encoded indications may be included in any type of parameter set), and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying respective partitioning unit of a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image ([0746], the closet block to an unavailable sample location is determined) based on a size of the respective partitioning unit ([0246], a size and shape of a block to be used for motion estimation/compensation is predetermined); and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit ([0746] padding is performed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of He for more efficient encoding/decoding.
He in view of Hannuksela is silent about wherein the plurality of padding methods comprises a first padding method which uses a same sample value for the region to be padded, and wherein the same sample value is determined based on information included in the image processing information; and wherein the same sample value is determined based on information included in the image processing information.
Sim from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the plurality of padding
methods comprises a first padding method which uses a same sample value for the region to be
padded ([0017], [0037], [0038], same values may be input to all pixels in a block being padded, [0047], the padding area is filled with a preset pixel value), and wherein the same sample value
is determined based on information included in the image processing information (FIG. 1, S102
and S110, the padding pixel value is calculated based on the size of the current block, [0046],
block size information is encoded and transmitted for performing padding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sim into the teachings of He in view
of Hannuksela for more efficient encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 4, He discloses wherein the plurality of padding methods comprises a second padding method which uses a sample inside the reconstructed image for the region to be padded ([0122], [0136], [0148], [0149], geometry padding is performed using reconstructed pixels).
Regarding claim 5, He discloses wherein the sample inside the reconstructed image is determined using at least one equation ([0125]-[0127], [0149], [0158], the reference sample is determined based on a set of equations).
Regarding claim 6, He discloses wherein the equation uses a width of the image or a height of the image ([0127], the width and height of the image is used to determine reference samples when geometry padding is applied).
Regarding claim 7, He discloses a method of encoding an image with an encoding apparatus, comprising:
determining a current block included in the image (FIGs. 10 and 11, [0112], current blocks B0 and B1);
generating a residual block for the current block ([0108], prediction residuals are generated using the reference image signaled by the reference picture index);
encoding information on the residual block into a bitstream ([0108], prediction residuals are generated using the reference image signaled by the reference picture index, encoded, and packed into a bitstream); and
encoding image processing information into the bitstream ([0161], sample adaptive offset (SAO) filtering is performed using SAO parameters encoded in the bitstream; [0144], [0155], padding of an image is performed using sample position information),
wherein the image processing information is used for performing a image processing on a reconstructed image ([0161], sample adaptive offset (SAO) filtering is performed using SAO parameters encoded in the bitstream; [0144], [0155], padding of an image is performed using sample position information), the reconstructed image is generated by reconstructing the current block based on the residual block ([0108], residuals are added to the prediction block to generate a reconstructed block), and
wherein the residual block is added to a prediction block corresponding to the residual block ([0108], residuals are added to the prediction block to generate a reconstructed block);;
wherein the image processing comprises padding at least one region to the reconstructed image ([0142], [0155], padding of a reference image is performed), and
wherein the padding is performed by selecting one among a plurality of padding methods ([0121], [0133], geometry or repetitive padding may be applied).
He is silent about wherein the padding is performed by selecting one among a plurality of padding methods using selection information obtained from the image processing information, and wherein the image processing information is included in a supplement enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the plurality of padding methods comprises a first padding method which uses a same sample value for the region to be padded, and wherein the same sample value is determined based on information included in the image processing information; and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying respective partitioning unit of a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image based on a size of the respective partitioning unit; and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit.
Hunneksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the padding is performed by selecting one among a plurality of padding methods using selection information obtained from the image processing information ([0746], the encoder encodes an applied padding method), and wherein the image processing information is included in a supplement enhancement information (SEI) message ([0225], SEI messages are signaled, [0752], [0753], the encoded indications may be included in any type of parameter set), and wherein performing the padding comprises: identifying respective partitioning unit of a plurality of partitioning units which constitute the reconstructed current image ([0746], the closet block to an unavailable sample location is determined) based on a size of the respective partitioning unit ([0246], a size and shape of a block to be used for motion estimation/compensation is predetermined); and performing the padding for the respective identified partitioning unit ([0746] padding is performed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of He for more efficient encoding/decoding.
He in view of Hannuksela is silent about wherein the plurality of padding methods comprises a first padding method which uses a same sample value for the region to be padded, and wherein the same sample value is determined based on information included in the image processing information; and wherein the same sample value is determined based on information included in the image processing information.
Sim from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the plurality of padding
methods comprises a first padding method which uses a same sample value for the region to be
padded ([0017], [0037], [0038], same values may be input to all pixels in a block being padded, [0047], the padding area is filled with a preset pixel value), and wherein the same sample value
is determined based on information included in the image processing information (FIG. 1, S102
and S110, the padding pixel value is calculated based on the size of the current block, [0046],
block size information is encoded and transmitted for performing padding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sim into the teachings of He in view
of Hannuksela for more efficient encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7.
Hannuksela further discloses transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 5, the bitstream is received by a
decoder DECODE).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (Zhang) (US 2017/0150186) ([0322], [0326], boundary pixel blocks are up-sampled/subsampling is performed based on the prediction unit size; [0143] reconstructed luma samples are resized).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights