DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1, 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
3.i The limitation reciting; “performing or skipping a pre-process on at least partial of the set of LIC parameters; and”, is deemed indefinite for claiming two different contrary actions in the alternative under an ambiguous logic of “performing” OR “skipping” a specific process without identifying a constraint condition for the pre-process of the set of LIC parameters.
Under this consideration, for the purpose of this examination, it is considered that the affirming action of, “performing” a pre-process of the LIC parameters would be pertinently acceptable in view of the subsequent limitation further relying on such “performing” action, to be comprehensive in the determination of an update process by reciting; “updating at least one history based local illumination compensation parameter table (HLICT) using at least partial of the set of LIC parameters, “, which would result in a change to the parameter table.
Under this rationale, it is considered that by “performing or skipping a pre-process” the subsequent claimed limitation, being set under either of, “performing” OR “skipping” the “pre-processing”, the recited; “updating at least one history based local illumination compensation parameter table (HLICT) using at least partial of the set of LIC parameters,“ would be executed in either case when the pre-processing occurs or not. The necessity of the “pre-processing” becomes questionable as recited.
Respectively, the subsequent Claims 2-18 depending directly or indirectly from claim 1, are rejected under the same provisions.
3.ii. Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In the present instance, claim 14 broadly recites; “ wherein the first video block is a LIC-coded block, the size of the first video block is larger a first threshold or smaller a second threshold, or “, and the claim also recites " at least one of the width and height of the first video block is larger a third threshold or smaller a fourth threshold” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The Specification at Par.[0433] recites in haec verba the threshold limits as; “…the size of the video block is larger a first threshold or smaller a second threshold.”, and at Par.[0434] citing; “…at least one of the width and height of the video block is larger a third threshold or smaller a fourth threshold.”
However, the cited paragraphs fail to determine a predetermined range of acceptable block size related thresholds, while remaining within relative limits of undetermined block sizes.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
A claim analysis is further elaborated based on the disclosure in Specification (ref. PGPUB) at Par.[0462-0463] reciting the matter in haec verba, where the boundary limits of the respective thresholds remains unclear as to the size of a block defined width and height e.g., WxH is represented by a specific threshold to be of first and second or third and fourth undefined limits.
Furthermore, threshold limits related to block sizes are indicated at Par.[0327] conditional to a series of constraints citing; “ 16. The above proposed method may be applied under certain conditions, such as block sizes, slice/picture/tile types, or motion information.”.
The Pars.[0328-0332] determine specific block size MxH conditions, e.g., 16 or 32 or 64 of luma samples, under which thresholds th1 and th2, the “method is not applied”.
At Par.[0333-0335] it is disclosed that; “17. Whether to enable or disable the above methods may be signaled in SPS/PPS/VPS sequence…. ” as well.
It is concluded that the thresholds identified at Pars.[0462-0463] as first, second, third and fourth do not find a comprehensive correlation to the th1, th2, from Pars.[0328-0332], hence deeming the recited matter indefinite.
For the purpose of this claim analysis, Examiner interprets the thresholds identified as th1, th2, to be representative to the condition under which the “proposed method is not allowed” and further accepting that the condition at; “17. Whether to enable or disable the above methods may be signaled in SPS/PPS/VPS…” as disclosed at Par.[0333-0335] and depending from Claim 12, for determining the derivation of Local Illumination compensation (LIC) parameters.
Clarification is required.
Double Patenting
4. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 of the issued Patent No. 12,212,769 (“the conflicting patent”) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as being determined from the instant claim 1, reading in verbatim the “the conflicting patent” at claim 1.
Exception to interpretation is given to the claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 under 35 rejected U.S.C. 112(b) statute issued to the original presented claims of the “conflicting patent” and uphold for the respective instant claims.
The dependent claims 2-18 recite the “conflicting patent” claims in haec verba, thus are also rejected under this paragraph.
Examiner’s Reasoning for the provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Instant Application vs. Conflicting Patent - claim analysis
It has been held by the Court that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the conflicting pending application for patent, it is deemed patentably indistinct from the named claim 1 of the conflicting patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1, 14, 19 and 20, are objected, but would be allowable if overcome the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and also contingent to satisfying the Double Patenting rejection by the filing of an amendment or by a Terminal Disclaimer.
Specifically, independent claims 1, 19 and 20 reciting; “updating at least one history based local illumination compensation parameter table (HLICT) using at least one parameter of the set of LIC parameters, wherein the at least one HLICT is used for a conversion of subsequent video blocks. “, is considered novel in view of the prior arts to Zhang et al., (hereinafter Zhang) (US 2017/0150156) and Chong Lim et al., (hereinafter Lim) (US 2022/0329793) priority of Prov. Appl No. 62/786,935 further analyzed for obviousness below for brevity.
Re Claim 1. Zhang discloses, a method of processing video data (Abstrract), comprising:
determining, for a first video block (for a first prediction block (PU), of coding unit (CU), performing illumination compensation (IC) Par.[0071-0072]), a set of local illumination compensation (LIC) parameters including a scaling factor and an offset factor (determining a set of parameters of a LIC process being enabled or disabled adaptively based on a linear model for illumination changes, using scaling factor a, and an offset b, as IC parameters at Par.[0070, 0190-0194] with scaling a, and offset b, factors are computed at Eq. (16) and (17) Par.[0194-0195] and Fig.20);
performing or skipping a pre-process on at least one parameter of the set of LIC parameters (performing a pre-processing of the LIC parameters i.e., by applying a sub-sampling (2:1) to the LIC parameters at Par.[0196] and Fig.20, etc.); and
Zhang does not expressly teach the limitation reciting, updating at least one history based local illumination compensation parameter table (HLICT) using at least one parameter of the set of LIC parameters, wherein the at least one HLICT is used for a conversion of subsequent video blocks.
Also, Lim is found to partially teach aspects of LIC application to the coding blocks;
Re Claim 1. Lim discloses, a method of processing video data, comprising:
determining, for a first video block, a set of local illumination compensation (LIC) parameters (determining a prediction image by performing local illumination compensation (LIC) at Step So_3, for a video block Par.[0342-0344] per Fig.34 and identifying luminance correction parameters based on luma values of the current block and of the reference pictures, Par.[0374-0376] and Fig.39, LIC process being enabled by a signaled lic_flag, Par.[0378-0381]) where the determination by calculating the luminance correction parameters as a first coefficient A representing the illumination value of the value for luma pixel po of the current block and a coefficient B, representing the illumination value of the luma reference sample of a neighboring pixel, p1, Par.[0382-0385]) including a scaling factor and an offset factor (suggesting the including of scalable encoding Par.[0070, 0517-0519] and the sample adaptive offset filtering of the reconstructed pixel blocks, Par.[0181-0184]);
However, Lim does not expressly teach the scalability and the offset being applied a priori i.e., as pre-processing to the LIC correction, nor the updating at least one history based local illumination compensation parameter table (HLICT) using at least one parameter of the set of LIC parameters, wherein the at least one HLICT is used for a conversion of subsequent video blocks.
A subsequent search was performed without identifying any prior art teaching the claimed matter of the independent claims.
Claims 19 and 20 are similarly analyzed as being allowable, mandated by overcoming the issued rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-18, would be also allowable in lieu of their dependency from an allowable claim upon overcoming the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph issued to the independent claim 1.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other art to be considered;
US 2017/0150176; US 10,951,912; US 10,880,570; US 2022/0360811; US 2022/0329793; and US 2018/0332298.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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 on 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 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487