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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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, 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,153,574 in view of US 2021/0176492 A1 (“Kim2”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
For example, although the Patent claims the reference pixels, it does not specifically claim “wherein a filtering is selectively performed on the reference pixels based on a second flag indicating whether the filtering is performed on the reference pixels, and wherein the second flag is derived based on at least one of a position of a pixel line to which the reference pixels belong, a component type, or whether intra prediction in sub-block units is applied.” Kim2 however, teaches wherein a filtering is selectively performed on the reference pixels based on a second flag indicating whether the filtering is performed on the reference pixels (e.g. see filtering is selectively performed based on a flag that indicate whether filtering is performed on the reference pixel, paragraph [0369]), and wherein the second flag is derived based on at least one of a position of a pixel line to which the reference pixels belong, a component type, or whether intra prediction in sub-block units is applied (e.g. see flag derive based on coding parameter that include at least one of a position/region of a reference pixel, a block size, a component type, whether intra prediction in units of sub-blocks is applied or an intra prediction mode, paragraph [0369]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the Patent with Kim2 in order to improve prediction accuracy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0160487 A1 (“Kim”) in view of US 2021/0211717 A1 (“Lee”) in further view of US 2021/0176492 A1 (“Kim2”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of decoding a video (e.g. see at video decoder 700 in Fig. 7 and see decoding method in Fig. 10), comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode (e.g. see intra prediction processing unit, e.g. 900 in Fig. 9, determining a selected mode in Fig. 10, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]) of a current block (e.g. see current video block, e.g. see at least paragraph [0074] and see video blocks in Fig. 9, e.g. see at least paragraph [0113]);
configuring reference pixels for intra prediction of the current block (e.g. see reference samples, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0111], [0113]); and
performing the intra prediction of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference pixels (e.g. see intra prediction processing unit 900 providing intra prediction predictive block based on mode and reference samples as shown in Figs. 9-10, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0113], [0115]),
wherein the intra prediction mode is derived based on a most probable mode (MPM) index and a candidate list including a plurality of MPM candidates (e.g. see Fig. 10 showing that if selected mode is one of the MPM candidates (e.g. from a candidate list, paragraphs [0029], [0032]) mpm_idx identifies indicating the MPM candidate selected, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]).
Although Kim discloses wherein the intra prediction mode is derived based on a most probable mode (MPM) index and a candidate list including a plurality of MPM candidates, it is noted Kim differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein based on a width of the current block being not equal to a height of the current block and the intra prediction mode of the current block being a directional mode belonging to a pre-defined range, the intra prediction mode is modified with a predetermined offset. Lee however, teaches wherein based on a width of the current block being not equal to a height of the current block and the intra prediction mode of the current block being a directional mode belonging to a pre-defined range, the intra prediction mode is modified with a predetermined offset (e.g. see when an intra prediction mode index of a current block is less than or equal to a first threshold value, and the current block is a non-square shape having a width greater than a height, the intra prediction mode modified to a wide angle intra prediction mode… by adding a predefined value, paragraph [0242]; also see paragraph [0243]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Kim and Lee before him/her, to modify the Systems and methods for intra prediction coding of Kim with the teachings of Lee in order to improve the efficiency of intra prediction by using wide angle intra prediction mode.
Further, although Kim discloses the reference pixels, it is noted Kim differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein a filtering is selectively performed on the reference pixels based on a second flag indicating whether the filtering is performed on the reference pixels, and wherein the second flag is derived based on at least one of a position of a pixel line to which the reference pixels belong, a component type, or whether intra prediction in sub-block units is applied. Kim2 however, teaches wherein a filtering is selectively performed on the reference pixels based on a second flag indicating whether the filtering is performed on the reference pixels (e.g. see filtering is selectively performed based on a flag that indicate whether filtering is performed on the reference pixel, paragraph [0369]), and wherein the second flag is derived based on at least one of a position of a pixel line to which the reference pixels belong, a component type, or whether intra prediction in sub-block units is applied (e.g. see flag derive based on coding parameter that include at least one of a position/region of a reference pixel, a block size, a component type, whether intra prediction in units of sub-blocks is applied or an intra prediction mode, paragraph [0369]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Kim, Lee and Kim2 before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Kim2 into the Systems and methods for intra prediction coding of Kim as modified by Lee in order to improve prediction accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of MPM candidates is 3, 4, 5, or 6 (e.g. see six, paragraphs [0030]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Kim2 further teaches wherein the reference pixels belong to one of a plurality of pixel lines neighboring to the current block (e.g. see multiple reference pixel layers in Fig. 27, paragraphs [0320]-[0322]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0021847 A1, Moon et al., Method and apparatus for encoding/decoding image, e.g. see paragraphs [0178]-[0186]
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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights