DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12225185. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are wholly encompassed by the claims of the patent as shown below.
12225185
Instant application (19006477)
A method of decoding an image signal, comprising: dividing a current coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, the plurality of sub-blocks including a first sub-block and a second sub-block; and
A method of decoding an image signal, comprising: dividing a current coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, the plurality of sub-blocks including a first sub-block and a second sub-block;
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block;
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block; and
generating a prediction sample of the second sub-block by using the intra prediction mode used to generate the prediction sample of the first sub-block,
generating a prediction sample of the second sub-block by using the intra prediction mode used to generate the prediction sample of the first sub-block,
wherein the first sub-block includes a top-left pixel in the current coding block,
wherein the first sub-block includes a top-left pixel in the current coding block,
wherein the second sub-block includes a bottom-right pixel in the current coding block,
wherein the second sub-block includes a bottom-right pixel in the current coding block, and
wherein a size of the second sub-block is 1/4 of a size of the current coding block
wherein a size of the second sub-block is 1/4 of a size of the current coding block
wherein the intra prediction mode is a directional intra prediction mode or a non-directional intra prediction mode,
and wherein the intra prediction mode is a directional intra prediction mode or a non- directional intra prediction mode.
and wherein the intra prediction mode is derived based on an index obtained from a bitstream.
Claims 15-19 of the instant application correspond to claims 15-19 of the patent.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helle US 20130287116 in view of Jeong US 20150350640.
Regarding claim 14, Helle meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of decoding an image signal, comprising:
dividing a current coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, the plurality of sub-blocks including a first sub-block and a second sub-block (i.e. video encoder/decoder may partition a coding block of a CU into one or more prediction blocks (sub-blocks).) [paragraphs 30; fig. 6,7];
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring sample, the neighboring sample including at least one of a rightmost neighboring pixel among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring pixel among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block (i.e. prediction parameters of neighboring blocks used in generating a prediction sample. Neighboring blocks include a rightmost top neighboring pixel B0 and bottommost left neighboring pixel A0.) [paragraph 40,53; fig. 12]; and
generating a prediction sample of the second sub-block by using the intra prediction mode used to generate the prediction sample of the first sub-block (i.e. All the partitions having been coded prior to partition 60 may, thus, serve the basis for the determination of the set of coding parameter candidates for any of the subsequent partitions, such as partition 60 in case of FIG. 2.) [paragraph 40,53; fig. 4,12],
wherein the first sub-block includes a top-left pixel in the current coding block (i.e. partition 0 is the first sub-block and contains a top left pixel of the current block) [paragraph 56-58; fig. 2,6,7,12],
wherein the second sub-block includes a bottom-right pixel in the current coding block (i.e. partition 1 or 3 could be the second sub-block and contains a bottom-right pixel of the current block) [paragraph 56-58; fig. 2,6,7,12], and
wherein a size of the second sub-block is 1/4 of a size of the current coding block (i.e. partition 3 shown in fig. 6 is ¼ the size of the CU) [paragraph 56; fig. 2,6,7].
Helle do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block; and
However, in the same field of endeavor Jeong discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block (i.e. intra mode prediction using a rightmost or bottommost neighboring blocks.) [166,168,191; fig. 16]; and
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Helle with Jeong to generate a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block
It would be advantageous because "The present invention is directed to providing an intra-prediction method that increases the accuracy of intra-prediction to enhance encoding efficiency.” [10].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Helle with Jeong to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Helle disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein a division type of the division of the current coding block is determined based on division type information signaled from a bitstream (i.e. decoder decodes a bitstreams signaling one of supported partitioning patterns.) [paragraph 7].
Regarding claim 16, Helle meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 15, wherein the division type of the division of the current coding block includes dividing the current coding block into 1/4 size (i.e. PART_NxN is a division where each PU is 1/4) [fig. 6].
Regarding claim 17, Helle meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 16, wherein whether to divide the current coding block is determined based on mode information signaled from the bitstream (i.e. a non-partitioning mode is included in the bitstream 30) [paragraph 29].
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 14. This is the encoder of claim 14. The corresponding encoder of claim 14 is shown in fig. 4 [paragraph 46-47; fig. 4]. Encoders and decoders are known to perform the inverse operations.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 18.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426