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 12/20/2024 is a CON of 17/865,631 filed on 07/15/2022 (PAT 12212788), which is a CON of 17/125,350 filed on 12/17/2020 (PAT 11432018), which has PRO 63/023,059 filed on 05/11/2020, in which claims 1-19 are pending and are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2025 and 03/26/2026. 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, 11 and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 12,212,788 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 12,212,788 B2
Instant Application:- 18/990,167
1. A method of video decoding, executable by a processor, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream that includes a current block comprising a luma component and a chroma component; determining a shared partition depth between the luma component and the chroma component, wherein the luma component and the chroma component have a same partitioning when being partitioned at a first depth less than the shared partition depth and wherein the luma component and the chroma component have different partitioning when being partitioned at a second depth beyond the shared partition depth; and decoding the current block according to the shared partition depth between the luma component and the chroma component.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: partitioning the luma component and the chroma component to the shared partition depth using a shared tree structure; partitioning the chroma component beyond the shared partition depth using a chroma partitioning; and partitioning the luma component beyond the shared partition depth using a luma partitioning, different than the chroma partitioning.
1. A method of processing visual media data, the method comprising: obtaining a source video sequence; performing a conversion between the source video sequence and a bitstream of visual media data according to a format rule, wherein the bitstream comprises a plurality of blocks including a current block having a luma component and a chroma component; and wherein the format rule specifies that: a shared partition depth is to be determined between the luma component and the chroma component, wherein the luma component and the chroma component have a same partitioning when being partitioned at a first depth less than the shared partition depth and wherein the luma component and the chroma component have different partitioning when being partitioned at a second depth beyond the shared partition depth; and the current block is to be decoded according to the shared partition depth between the luma component and the chroma component.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 12,212,788 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 18/990,167. Similar rejection can be presented for US 12,382,037 B2, US 11,432,018 B2, and US 10,904,580 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20160277762 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Claim 11-19’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream …. comprising …..” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(IIJ). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 11-19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-10 refer to "A method of processing visual media data”, and Claims 10-19 refer to "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Claims 10-19 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-10, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-10, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ("Effective Quadtree Plus Binary Tree Block Partition Decision for Future Video Coding," 2017 Data Compression Conference (DCC), Snowbird, UT, USA, 2017, pp. 23-32), hereinafter Wang, in view of Helle et al. (US 20190238896 A1), hereinafter Helle.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method of processing visual media data, the method comprising (Abstract): obtaining a source video sequence; performing a conversion between the source video sequence and a bitstream of visual media data according to a format rule, wherein the bitstream comprises a plurality of blocks including a current block having a luma component and a chroma component (Section 1.Introduction); and the current block is to be decoded according to the shared partition depth between the luma component and the chroma component (Fig. 1, Section 1, Shared).
Wang discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section and wherein the format rule specifies that: a shared partition depth is to be determined between the luma component and the chroma component, wherein the luma component and the chroma component have a same partitioning when being partitioned at a first depth less than the shared partition depth and wherein the luma component and the chroma component have different partitioning when being partitioned at a second depth beyond the shared partition depth.
However, Helle from the same or similar endeavor teaches and wherein the format rule specifies that: a shared partition depth is to be determined between the luma component and the chroma component, wherein the luma component and the chroma component have a same partitioning when being partitioned at a first depth less than the shared partition depth and wherein the luma component and the chroma component have different partitioning when being partitioned at a second depth beyond the shared partition depth ([0097]-[0098], [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Helle to effectively exploit similarities in multitree subdivision (Helle, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the format rule further specifies that: the luma component and the chroma component are to be partitioned to the shared partition depth using a shared tree structure; the chroma component is to be partitioned beyond the shared partition depth using a chroma partitioning; and the luma component is to be partitioned beyond the shared partition depth using a luma partitioning, different than the chroma partitioning (Wang, Section 1-2, Helle, [0097]-[0098], [0109]-[0110], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 2 wherein the chroma partitioning utilizes a set of chroma partition types that is a subset of a set of luma partition types used for the luma partitioning (Wang, Section 1-2, Helle, [0097]-[0098], [0109]-[0110], [0154], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 1, wherein chroma partitioning information is not signaled in the bitstream for a shared tree structure up to the shared partition depth (Wang, Section 1-2, Helle, [0097]-[0098], [0109]-[0110], [0121], [0154], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream comprises a flag indicating that the luma component and the chroma component share a tree structure up to the shared partition depth (Wang, Section 1-2, Helle, [0097]-[0098], [0109]-[0110], [0121], [0154], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the flag is signaled at a super block level in the bitstream (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is a super block (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the format rule further specifies that whether the luma component and the chroma component share a tree structure up to the shared partition depth is to be determined based on partitioning information for the luma component (Wang, Section 1-2, Helle, [0097]-[0098], [0109]-[0110], [0121], [0154], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the partitioning information for the luma component comprises a partition type for the luma component.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Helle discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the shared partition depth is to be derived based on a luma coding tree depth and a maximum tree depth for the current block (Wang, Section 1-2, Helle, [0097]-[0098], [0109]-[0110], [0121], [0154], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11-19, See Examiner’s Note. An et al. (US 20180288446 A1), hereinafter An, is not relied on this rejection but it is requested to consider An during response for the sake of prosecution.
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
Prosecution Insights