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 .
Detailed Action
This office Action is in response to an application filed on 12/18/2024 is a CON of 17/518,923 11/04/2021 PAT 12212743, which is a CON of PCT/CN2020/088389 04/30/2020, which has PRO 62/843,431 05/04/2019, in which claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024, 11/20/2025, and 12/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 12,212,743 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 12,212,743 B2
Instant Application:-18/985,922
1. A method, comprising: obtaining a bitstream, wherein at least one bit in the bitstream represents a syntax element for a current block, wherein the at least one bit comprises two bits, wherein the syntax element specifies a clipping index of a clipping value for an adaptive loop filter (ALF), and wherein the syntax element is coded using a fixed length code; parsing the bitstream to obtain a value of the syntax element for the current block, wherein the value of the syntax element for the current block comprises one of four clipping values, and wherein the one of four clipping values is a numeric value that is used to determine a clipping range for adaptive loop filtering; and applying, based on the value, the adaptive loop filtering on the current block.
1. A method, comprising: obtaining a bitstream, wherein at least one bit in the bitstream represents a syntax element, and wherein the syntax element is an adaptive loop filter (ALF) coefficient parameter; parsing the bitstream to obtain a value of the syntax element; determining, based on the ALF coefficient parameter, an ALF coefficient; and applying, based on the ALF coefficient, adaptive loop filtering.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 12,212,743 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 18/985,922. Similar rejections can be presented for US 12,069,284 B2, US 12,058,378 B2, US 11,889,030 B2, US 11,870,986 B2, US 12,301,800 B2, and US 11,368,696 B2.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-4 refer to "A method”, Claims 5-8 refer to "A method”, and Claims 9-20 refer to "A non-transitory storage medium”. Claims 1-8 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 9-20, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 9-20, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20200053358 B1), hereinafter Moon in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190297320 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto,.
Regarding claim 9, Moon discloses a non-transitory storage medium, comprising (Abstract, [0281]): an encoded bitstream for a video signal stored therein (Fig. 2), wherein the encoded bitstream comprises a syntax element ([0255]), and wherein adaptive loop filtering is applied based on the ALF coefficient ([0006], [0267]-[0269]).
Moon discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Jahid does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein the syntax element is an adaptive loop filter (ALF) coefficient parameter, wherein the ALF coefficient parameter determines an ALF coefficient.
However, Yamamoto from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the syntax element is an adaptive loop filter (ALF) coefficient parameter, wherein the ALF coefficient parameter determines an ALF coefficient ([0073], [0120]-[0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to achieve high coding efficiency (Yamamoto, [0014]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 10, Moon in view of Yamamoto discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the syntax element is configured to be applied to a set of blocks (Moon, [0281], [0006], [0267]-[0269], Yamamoto, [0065], [0073], [0120]-[0123], [0259]).
Regarding claim 11, Moon in view of Yamamoto discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the syntax element is at a slice level (Moon, [0281], [0006], [0267]-[0269], Yamamoto, [0065], [0073], [0120]-[0123], [0293]).
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin et al. (US 20100118940 A1), hereinafter Yin,.
Regarding claim 12, Moon in view of Yamamoto all the elements of claim 12 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the encoded bitstream is configured to be parsed to obtain a value of the syntax element, and wherein the value is an unsigned integer.
However, Yin from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the encoded bitstream is configured to be parsed to obtain a value of the syntax element, and wherein the value is an unsigned integer ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon in view of Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Yin to improve coding cost (Yin, [0003]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 13, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to broadcast digital television (TV) (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 14, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to video transmission over Internet (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 15, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to video transmission over mobile networks (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 16, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to a real-time conversational application (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 17, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to a video chat (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 18, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to video conferencing.
Regarding claim 19, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to a digital versatile disc (DVD) (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 20, Moon in view of Yamamoto further in view of Yin discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the video signal corresponds to a BLU-RAY disc (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 1-8, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487