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 a continuation application filed in which claims 1-8 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 filed in parent Application 17/775,583.
However, applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application filed in parent Application 17/775,583 to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “setting unit configured to set a transform type...” and “orthogonal transform unit configured to orthogonally transform coefficient data...” in claim 1. Similar arguments apply regarding the “setting unit” functions in claims 2-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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).
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,462. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,462, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-8 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the subject matter in claim 8 of U.S. Patent Number 12,192,462 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claims 1 and 8 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (“On the combination of JCCR and TS”) in view of Aono (US 2020/0053365).
As to claim 1, Ray teaches an image processing device comprising: a setting unit configured to set a transform type in a non-joint chrominance encoding mode as a transform type in a joint chrominance encoding mode (see Abstract on Page 1; see Pages 2-3, Section 1 describing bestCostCbCr, bestDistCbCr, and bestJointCbcr; further see Pages 3-4, Section 2: Proposal 1 and Table 3 describing MTS index of best independent coding of cb and cr components, i.e. non-joint chrominance coding, being used in JCCR),
and a transform unit configured to transform coefficient data of an image based on the transform type in the joint chrominance encoding mode set by the setting unit (see Abstract on Page 1; see Pages 2-3, Section 1 describing bestCostCbCr, bestDistCbCr, and bestJointCbcr; further see Pages 3-4, Section 2: Proposal 1 and Table 3 describing MTS index of best independent coding of cb and cr components, i.e. non-joint chrominance coding, being used in JCCR).
Ray does not explicitly teach an orthogonal transform unit configured to orthogonally transform coefficient data of an image based on the transform type in the joint chrominance encoding mode set by the setting unit.
However, Aono teaches a orthogonal transform unit configured to orthogonally transform coefficient data of an image based on a transform type ([0006], [0095], [0137], [0159], [0187]-[0188], and [0192]).
Therefore, based on the above teachings in Ray and Aono, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ray’s system with Aono’s system to show an orthogonal transform unit configured to orthogonally transform coefficient data of an image based on the transform type in the joint chrominance encoding mode set by the setting unit in order to provide improved and more flexible video coding techniques.
As to claim 8, the aforementioned claim is rejected similarly as claim 1.
As to claim 2, Ray further teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to set a transform skip as the transform type in the joint chrominance encoding mode (see Pages 3-4, Section 2: Proposal 1 and Table 3).
As to claim 3, Ray further teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to, in a case of not applying the transform skip, apply DCT2 as the transform type in the joint chrominance encoding mode (see Pages 3-4, Section 2: Proposal 1 and Table 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Aono and further in view of Xiu (“AHG11: Encoder improvements on JCCR with chroma transform skip mode”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ray and Aono does not teach wherein the setting unit is configured to set a value of a transform skip flag in the non-joint chrominance encoding mode as a value of a transform skip flag in the joint chrominance encoding mode.
However, Ray does teach, in the non-joint chrominance encoding mode, deriving and setting a transform skip as the transform type in the joint chrominance encoding mode (see Pages 3-4, Section 2: Proposal 1 and Table 3).
In addition, Xiu teaches enabling R-D checking of chroma transform skip (TS) mode when the JCCR mode is applied (Section 1, Pages 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ray’s system and Aono’s system with Xiu’s system to show wherein the setting unit is configured to set a value of a transform skip flag in the non-joint chrominance encoding mode as a value of a transform skip flag in the joint chrominance encoding mode in order to provide encoder improvements to properly enable the chroma TS mode for the chroma residual coding of the JCCR mode (Xiu; Page 1, Abstract).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Aono and further in view of Bross (“Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7)”). Bross was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 05/10/2022 in parent Application 17/775,583 and can be accessed from the aforementioned parent Application.
As to claim 5, the combination of Ray and Aono does not teach wherein the setting unit is configured to set the joint chrominance encoding mode based on a chrominance encoding block flag in the non-joint chrominance encoding mode.
However, Bross teaches setting the joint chrominance encoding mode based on a chrominance encoding block flag in the non-joint chrominance encoding mode (see Section 7.3.9.10 from Pages 77-79 and Section 7.4.10.10 from Pages 159-161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ray’s system and Aono’s system with Bross’s system to show wherein the setting unit is configured to set the joint chrominance encoding mode based on a chrominance encoding block flag in the non-joint chrominance encoding mode in order to provide improved and more flexible video coding techniques.
As to claim 6, the combination of Ray, Aono, and Bross teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to set a coded component identifier based on the set joint chrominance encoding mode (Bross; see Section 7.3.9.10 from Pages 77-79 and Section 7.4.10.10 from Pages 159-161; additionally see Section 8.7.2 from Pages 296-297).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 and if the above patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights