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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,536. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
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)(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) 1 – 3, 6 – 9, 12 – 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (US 2018/0020218, hereafter Zhao).
As per claim 1, Zhao discloses a method for decoding a video signal, comprising:
determining a non-zero region in a transform block based on a width and a height of the transform block (¶ 105 and 106), wherein a last non-zero transform coefficient is positioned in the non-zero region (¶ 146);
obtaining first information regarding a position of the last non-zero transform coefficient, wherein the first information regarding a position of the last non-zero transform coefficient comprises prefix information of a horizontal position and prefix information of a vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient, and suffix information of the horizontal position and suffix information of the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient (¶ 110 - 113); and
decoding a current transform block based on the position of the last non-zero transform coefficient (¶ 28 and 33).
As per claim 2, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the prefix information of the horizontal position and the prefix information of the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient are determined based on truncated unary binarization (¶ 110).
As per claim 3, Zhao discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the suffix information of the horizontal position and the suffix information of the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient are determined based on fixed-length binarization, wherein a length of a fixed length code used for determining the suffix information of the horizontal position for the last non-zero transform coefficient is determined based on a value of the prefix information of the horizontal position for the last non-zero transform coefficient, and a length of a fixed length code used for determining the suffix information of the vertical position for the last non- zero transform coefficient is determined based on the value of the prefix information of the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient (¶ 110 - 115).
As per claim 6, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the horizontal position for the last non-zero transform coefficient based on the prefix information of the horizontal position and the suffix information of the horizontal position; and determining the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient based on the prefix information of the vertical position and the suffix information of the vertical position (¶ 110 - 115).
Regarding claim 8, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 20.
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.
The factual inquiries 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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Cherepanov et al (US 2017/0034530, hereafter Cherepanov).
As per claim 7, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein in response to the width and the height of the transform block being equal to a specific value, the non-zero region is a limited region, wherein a number of pixels in the non-zero region is a specific number.
In the same field of endeavor, Cherepanov wherein in response to the width and the height of the transform block being equal to a specific value, the non-zero region is a limited region, wherein a number of pixels in the non-zero region is a specific number (¶ 63 – 65, 76, and 77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Zhao in view of Cherepanov. The advantage is improving transform coding.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7 are applicable for claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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 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 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights