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 §§ 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.
US Patent 11,451,814 B2
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,451,814 B2 in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0006309 A1) (hereinafter Liu).
Instant 19/008,139
US 11,451,814 B2
1. An image decoding method comprising:
7. An image decoding method comprising:
obtaining one or more coding units comprising a current coding unit, by hierarchically splitting at least one largest coding unit, based on a split shape mode;
obtaining one or more coding units comprising a current coding unit, by hierarchically splitting at least one largest coding unit among the plurality of largest coding units, based on a split shape mode;
when a prediction mode of the current coding unit is an inter mode, obtaining, from a bitstream, a first coded block flag indicating whether the current coding unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients;
based on a prediction mode of the current coding unit being an inter mode, obtaining, from a bitstream, a first coded block flag indicating whether the current coding unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients;
when the first coded block flag indicates that the current coding unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients, identifying whether at least one of a height and a width of the current coding unit is greater than a predetermined size;
based on the first coded block flag indicating that the current coding unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients, identifying whether at least one of a height and a width of the current coding unit is greater than a predetermined size;
based on an intra sub partition mode is not used for the current coding unit and whether the at least one of the height and the width of the current coding unit is greater than the predetermined size, obtaining at least one transform unit included in the current coding unit;
when a tree type of the current coding unit is a dual-tree chroma type, obtaining, from the bitstream, a second coded block flag indicating whether a block of at least one chroma component included in the at least one transform unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients;
wherein the obtaining of the second coded block flag from the bitstream comprises, based on a tree type of the current coding unit corresponding to a single tree type or a dual-tree luma type, the second coded block flag indicating whether a block of a luma component included in the at least one transform unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients;
when the at least one of the height and the width of the current coding unit is greater than the predetermined size, obtaining, from the bitstream, a third coded block flag indicating whether a block of a luma component included in the at least one transform unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients;
based on the at least one of the height and the width of the current coding unit being greater than the predetermined size, obtaining a second coded block flag from the bitstream, the second coded block flag indicating whether a block of a luma component included in the at least one transform unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients;
obtaining a residual signal of the block of the luma component included in the at least one transform unit, based on the third coded block flag;
obtaining a residual signal of the block of the luma component included in the at least one transform unit, based on the second coded block flag;
reconstructing the current coding unit based on the residual signal; and
reconstructing the current coding unit based on the residual signal; and
reconstructing a current image comprising the current coding unit, based on the reconstructed current coding unit,
reconstructing the current image comprising the current coding unit, based on the reconstructed current coding unit,
wherein the split shape mode indicates at least one of whether to perform splitting, a split direction, or a split type, and
wherein the split shape mode indicates at least one of whether to perform splitting, a split direction, or a split type, and
wherein the split type corresponds to one of binary splitting, tri splitting, and quad splitting,
wherein the split type corresponds to one of binary splitting, tri splitting, and quad splitting.
wherein the current coding unit has a square shape or a rectangular shape.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 7 of US 11,451,814 B2 in that the instant application discloses the limitations of based on an intra sub partition mode is not used for the current coding unit and whether the at least one of the height and the width of the current coding unit is greater than the predetermined size, obtaining at least one transform unit included in the current coding unit, a second coded block flag indicating whether a block of at least one chroma component included in the at least one transform unit comprises one or more non-zero significant transform coefficients, and wherein the current coding unit has a square shape or a rectangular shape.
However, these limitations are known in the art as evidenced by Liu, wherein Paragraph [0337]-[0340], teaches of a video encoder 20 may select a value that indicates that the depth prediction unit is not to be predicted according to the DMM prediction mode when the size of the depth prediction unit is greater than the maximum transform block size specified for the depth prediction unit, and in paragraph [0103], that PUs may be partitioned to be non-square in shape, or include partitions that are non-rectangular in shape, in the case of depth coding as described in this disclosure. Syntax data associated with a CU may also describe, for example, partitioning of the CU into one or more TUs according to a quadtree. A TU can be square or non-square (e.g., rectangular) in shape. Furthermore, Paragraph [0135] indicates that a cbf for a transform unit that equals 1 specifies that the transform unit contains one or more transform coefficient levels not equal to 0, and that the cbf may be set for each component of the transform unit, e.g., cbf is set for cb and cr component respectively. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the instant invention to add the teachings of Liu as above, for the techniques for constraining depth intra mode coding may prevent the DMM mode from being used when the maximum transform unit size that corresponds to a depth prediction unit is greater than the size of the depth prediction unit. The techniques for constraining depth intra mode coding may prevent characteristics of the DMM prediction modes used in 3D-HEVC and characteristics of the transform tree subdivision used in 3D-HEVC from interfering with each other (Liu, Paragraphs [0006]).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2015/0085929 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 4, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream being encoded by an encoding method comprising […],” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream/image data 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 non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream. 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(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable recording/storage medium storing the claimed bitstream/image data in claim 4 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream/image data and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream/image data and recording/storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which 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 Chen which recites in Paragraphs [0058]-[0062], wherein the encoded video information may then be output by output interface 22 onto a computer-readable medium 16, wherein computer-readable medium 16 may include storage media (that is, non-transitory storage media), such as a hard disk, flash drive, compact disc, digital video disc, Blu-ray disc, or other computer-readable media.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are would be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejections are overcome as outlined above. Claim 4 would be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejections and rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are overcome as outlined above.
Claims 1-4 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487