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 1-4 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of these claims is directed to a manufacture claim.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,666 B2 (referred as ‘666 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claim 1 of the ‘666 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘666 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see line 1instructions):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 2-3); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 4-6),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 7):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 8-9);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 10-15); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 16-21),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 22-26), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 27-34).
While claim 1 of the ‘666 patent does not include additional limitations “medium”, “program” and “processor”, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to speed up the coding process. Thus, before the effective filing date of instant invention or at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with patented claim 1 for that reasons. Also, it would have been obvious to incorporate claim limitations in combination with patented claim 1 because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘666 patent.
Likewise, instant claim 3 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, instant claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘666 patent. For example, as to claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘666 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see line 1):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 2-3); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 4-7),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 8):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 9-10);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 11-16); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 17-22),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 23-27), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 28-34).
While claim 2 of the ‘666 patent does not include additional limitations “medium”, “program” and “processor”, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to speed up the coding process. Thus, before the effective filing date of instant invention or at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with patented claim 2 for that reasons. Also, it would have been obvious to incorporate claim limitations in combination with patented claim 2 because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 2 of the ‘666 patent.
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,753 B2 (referred as ‘753 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘753 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘753 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-4):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 5-6); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 7-9),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 10):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 11-12);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 13-18); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 19-22),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 23-25; in view of BRI), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 26-33).
As to the instant claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘753 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-4):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 5-6); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 7-10),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 11):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 12-13);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 14-19); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 20-23),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 24-26), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 27-34).
As to the instant claim 3, claim 3 of the ‘753 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream being decoded by a processor performing a decoding method comprising (see lines 1-4):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 5-6); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 7-9),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 10):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 11-12);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 13-18); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 19-22),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 23-25), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 26-33).
As to the instant claim 4, claim 4 of the ‘753 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream being decoded by a processor performing a decoding method comprising (see lines 1-4):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 5-6); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 7-10),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 11):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 12-13);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 14-19); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 20-23),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 24-26), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 27-34).
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,382,760 B2 (referred as ‘760 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claim 2 of the ‘760 patent. For example, as to instant claim 1 as a representative claim, claim 2 of the ‘760 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-10: processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 11-13 and 53-56); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 14-17),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see lines 18-19):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 20-21);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 22-27); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 28-32),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 37-42), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 43-49).
While claim 2 of the ‘760 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim , the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 2 of the ‘760 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 2 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
As to instant claim 2 as a representative claim, claim 2 of the ‘760 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-10: processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 11-13 & 53-56); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 57-61),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see lines 62-63):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 64-66);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 67-73); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 74-78),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 83-88), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 90-96).
While claim 2 of the ‘760 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim , the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 2 of the ‘760 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 2 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 3 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, instant claim 3 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,792,400 B2 (referred as ‘400 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘400 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘400 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-5: processing circuitry and storage which is inherently included computer program to be executed by processing circuitry):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 6-7); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 8-10),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 11):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 12-13);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 14-19); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 20-25),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 26-30), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 31-37).
While claim 1 of the ‘400 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘400 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 3 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, instant claim 3 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Also, instant claims 1 and 3 are not patentably distinct from claim 3 of the ‘400 patent because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claim 3 of the ‘400 patent. Therefore, instant claims 1 and 3 also fail to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 3 of the ‘400 patent.
As to the instant claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘400 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-5: processing circuitry and storage which is inherently included computer program to be executed by processing circuitry):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 6-7); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 8-11),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 12):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 13-14);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 15-20); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 21-26),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 27-31), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 32-39).
While claim 2 of the ‘400 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim 2, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 2 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 2 of the ‘400 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 2 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,792,739 B2 (referred as ‘739 patent hereinafter).
As to instant claim 2 as a representative claim, claim 4 of the ‘739 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-7: processing circuitry and storage which is inherently included computer program to be executed by processing circuitry):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 8-9); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 10-13),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 14):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 15-16);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 17-22); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 23-26),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 27-31), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 32-38).
While claim 4 of the ‘739 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim 2, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 2 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 4 of the ‘739 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 4 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,525,881 B2 (referred as ‘881 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claim 1 of the ‘881 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘881 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-8: processing circuitry and memory which inherently includes executable instructions):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 9-11); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 12-14),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 15):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 16-18);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 19-24); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 25-29),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 30-35), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 36-42).
While claim 1 of the ‘881 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘881 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 3 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, instant claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 2 is fully defined by claim 1 of the ‘881 patent. For example, claim 1 of the ‘881 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-8: processing circuitry and memory which inherently includes program):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 45-47); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 48-51),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 52):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 53-55);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 56-62); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 63-67),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 68-73), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 74-81).
While claim 1 of the ‘881 patent includes additional limitations (see lines 9-43, for example) that are not set forth in the instant claim 2, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 2 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘881 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,794,571 B2 (referred as ‘571 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 2 is fully defined by claim 3 of the ‘571 patent. For example, as to claim 2, claim 3 of the ‘571 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-8):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 9-11); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 12-15),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 16):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 17-18);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 19-24); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 25-28),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 33-37), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 39-44).
While claim 3 of the ‘571 patent includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim 2, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 2 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 3 of the ‘571 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 3 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,165,277 B2 (referred as ‘277 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 5 is fully defined by claim 3 of the ‘277 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 3 of the ‘277 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-8):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 9-11); and
performing arithmetic coding on a control parameter for the current block to generate a bitstream corresponding to the current block (see lines 12-14),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 15):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 16-17);
determining the context by using both of coded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 18-23); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the coded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 24-27),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 31-36), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 37-43).
While claim 3 of the ‘277 patent includes additional limitations (see lines 28-31, for example) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 3 of the ‘277 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 3 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, instant claim 3 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, instant claim 3 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,022 B2 (referred as ‘022 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘022 patent. For example, as to claim 2, claim 1 of the ‘022 patent discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations including (see lines 1-3):
determining a context for a current block in an image, from among a plurality of contexts (see lines 4-5); and
performing arithmetic decoding on a bitstream corresponding to the current block, using the determined context to obtain a control parameter for the current block (see lines 6-9),
wherein the determining of the context further includes (see line 10):
determining a signal type under which the control parameter for the current block is classified (see lines 11-12);
determining the context by using both of decoded control parameters for a left block and an upper block, when the signal type is a first type, the left block being a neighboring block to the left of the current block, and the upper block being a neighboring block on top of the current block (see lines 13-18); and
determining the context by using a predetermined fixed value, without using any of the decoded control parameters for the left block and the upper block, when the signal type is a second type different from the first type (see lines 19-22),
wherein a skip flag is classified under the first type, the skip flag indicating whether or not the current block is to be skipped (see lines 23-27), and
wherein a difference parameter and a residual flag are classified under the second type, the difference parameter indicating a difference between a motion vector and a motion vector predictor of the current block, the residual flag indicating whether or not residual data is included in the current block, and the residual data including at least one of luma coefficient data or chroma coefficient data (see lines 28-34).
While claim 1 of the ‘022 patent does not include additional limitations “medium”, “program” and “processor”, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to speed up the coding process. Thus, before the effective filing date of instant invention or at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with patented claim 1 for that reasons. Also, it would have been obvious to incorporate claim limitations in combination with patented claim 1 because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results. Therefore, instant claim 2 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘022 patent.
Likewise, instant claim 4 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, instant claim 4 is also rejected 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 on 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 on 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 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.
DMD
10/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights