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 .
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 and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/997,631 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘631 application disclose all of the limitations required by claims 1, 13 and 14 of the instant application as detailed below.
Instant Application
18/997,631
Claim 1: A video coding method comprising: receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video;
receiving or signaling a selection of first and second reference lines among a plurality of reference lines that neighbor the current block; blending the first and second reference lines into a fused reference line;
generating a prediction of the current block by using samples of the fused reference line; and encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated prediction.
Claim 1: A video coding method comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video;
receiving or signaling a selection of first and second reference lines among a plurality of reference lines that neighbor the current block;
blending samples of the first and second reference lines, each blended sample generated by combining a sample in the first reference line with a sample in the second reference line that is identified according to an intra-prediction mode; generating a prediction of the current block with the intra-prediction mode by using the blended samples; and
encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated prediction.
Claims 13-14 similarly corresponding to claims 14-15 of the ‘631 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (2019/0141318).
In regard to claim 1 Li discloses a video coding method comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (Li general Figs 3-6 and pars 63-124 for details of encoding and decoding video, particularly note pars 73-75 and Fig. 4a for dividing an input picture into blocks during encoding and pars 113 and Fig. 6 for parsing block information including quantized transform coefficient blocks during decoding);
receiving or signaling a selection of first and second reference lines among a plurality of reference lines that neighbor the current block (Li pars 169-180 particularly note par. 173 signaling reference line indices for multiple reference lines, thus inherently including at least an index for first and second reference lines);
blending the first and second reference lines into a fused reference line (Li par. 173 note blending multiple reference lines with weighting);
generating a prediction of the current block by using samples of the fused reference line (Li par. 173 note reference lines are blended to compute predicted sample values for a current block);
encoding or decoding the current bock by using the generated prediction (Li note Fig. 4b 445 and Fig. 6 645 for intra prediction using a generated intra predictor during encoding and decoding)
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li further discloses that each reference line comprises a set of pixel samples that forms an L-shape near the current block (Li Fig. 13 and pars 139-141 note L- shaped reference sample lines).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li further discloses that the plurality of reference lines comprise one reference line that is adjacent to the current block and two or more reference lines that are not adjacent to the current block (LI Fig. 13 and pars 139-141 note reference line 0 adjacent to the current block, also note plural reference lines 1-m or 1-n that are not adjacent to the current block).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 5 above. Li further discloses that the first reference line is adjacent to the current block (Li par. 155 note when signaling plural reference lines, reference line indices may include a pair of indices being 0 and 3, hence the first reference line may be line 0 which is adjacent to the current block).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 5 above. Li further discloses that the first and second reference lines are not adjacent to the current block (Li par. 155 note when signaling plural reference lines, reference line indices may include a pair of indices being 1 and 2, hence both the first and second references lines are not adjacent to the current block).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li further discloses that the selection of the first and second reference lines comprises an index that represents a combination that includes the first and second reference lines, wherein different combinations of two or more reference lines are represented by different indices (Li par 179-180 note jointly indicating combinations of reference lines using a single syntax element, also note that a unique set of table information maybe signaled for each combination of reference lines).
In r3egard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Li further discloses that the different indices representing different combinations of reference lines are determined based on costs of the different combinations (Li pars 317-346 for three approaches to determining selected reference line indices particularly note pars. 328, 332 and 341 each approach determines a selected set of reference lines based on the costs of the various combinations).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. further discloses that each combination further specifies an intra-prediction mode by which the prediction of the current block is generated based on the fused reference line (Li par. 171 note signaled intra prediction mode which determines how reference lines are signaled).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li further discloses that the received or signaled selection of the first and second reference line comprises first and second indices (Li par. 173 note reference line indices can be signaled for multiple reference lines).
In regard to claim 12 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 11 above. Li further discloses that the first index identifies the first reference line and the second index is an offset to be added to the first index for identifying the second reference line (Li par. 176 note predicting reference line indices, particularly note that the predictor may be a default reference line index e.g. line index 0, further note par. 177 a predictor flag may indicate whether the line index is equal to the predictor value, or whether another value that can be a differential value is included to signal the index, thus a first flag may be sent to indicate that a first reference line is the default reference line, e.g. reference line 0, and a second index may indicate a differential value, or offset, from the default reference line).
Claims 13 and 14 recite an apparatus and decoding method corresponding to the coding method of claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claims 13 and 14 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 13 and 14 Li further discloses a decoding method (Li Figs 5-6 and pars. 105-124 note decoding) and a coding apparatus (Li Fig. 1 and pars 52-65, further note Figs 3-4b pars 68-104 for details of encoding).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mora et al (2020/0296356).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that Lee does not disclose a histogram of gradients (HoG). However, Mora discloses:
deriving a histogram of gradients (HoG) comprising a plurality of bins corresponding to different intra prediction angles, wherein an entry is made to a bin when a gradient computed based on the fused reference line indicates a particular intra prediction angle that corresponds to the bin (Mora pars 208-210 note histogram shown in Fig. 5 showing various HEVC prediction mode bins with values based on a gradient value computed for each pixel in an application area; also note par. 2 and Fig. 7 of Li showing that each of the HEVC/H.265 prediction modes corresponds to a prediction angle)
identifying two or more intra prediction modes based on the HoG (Mora par. 210 note selecting two intra prediction modes i.e. modes 10 and 18),
wherein the prediction of the current block is generated based on the identified two or more intra prediction modes (Mora par. 210 two intra prediction modes are used to predict a current block, also note Li pars 205-207 for weight prediction using two intra modes).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of using a HoG as taught by Mora to select the intra prediction modes of Li in order to gain the advantage of avoiding selection of unreliable intra predictors as suggested by Mora (Mora par. 213).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim et al (2022/007027).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that Li does not disclose details of a linear model. However Kim discloses a cross component linear model (CCLM) used with multiple reference line prediction in which a linear model is derived based on luma and chroma component samples of the fused reference line, wherein the prediction of the current block is chroma prediction generated by applying the derived linear model to luma samples of the current block (Kim Figs 12-15 and pars 155-156 note applying CCLM with MRL, note chroma uses an average MRL index further note predicting chroma sample values using luma information, further note pars 157-185 for linear models predicting the chroma samples of a current block based on the luma samples).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including CCLM as taught by Kim in the invention of Li in order to predict chroma components, from luma components in sub-sampled chroma formats as suggested by Li (Li par. 97).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20260046447 A1 CHIANG; Man-Shu et al.
US 20250294171 A1 TSAI; Chia-Ming et al.
US 20240380879 A1 WANG; Yang et al.
US 20240236308 A1 TENG; CHIH-YU et al.
US 20220329800 A1 Ray; Bappaditya et al.
US 20190281290 A1 LEE; Jin-Ho et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights