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 .
Detailed Action
This office Action is in response to an application filed on 01/10/2025 is a CON of 18/423,632 01/26/2024 PAT 12256080, is a CON of 17/942,437 09/12/2022 PAT 11930181, is a CON of 17/197,327 03/10/2021 PAT 11509901, is a CON of PCT/CN2020/090688 05/15/2020, which has PRO 62/872,830 07/11/2019, 62/873,170 07/11/2019, 62/872,488 07/10/2019, in which claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025, 07/15/2025, 10/23/2025 and 01/16/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 11,509,901 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 11,509,901 B2
Instant Application:-19/016,077
1. A method for colour component prediction, applicable for an encoder and comprising: determining prediction parameters of a current block, the prediction parameters comprising a prediction mode parameter and a size parameter of the current block; when the prediction mode parameter indicates that a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode is adopted to determine an intra prediction value of the current block, determining an MIP weight matrix of the current block, a shift factor of the current block and an MIP input sample matrix of the current block; and determining the intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP weight matrix, the shift factor and the MIP input sample matrix, wherein the MIP weight matrix of the current block is at least determined according to a block size index value of the current block; the block size index value of the current block is determined according to the size parameter of the current block; and determining the block size index value of the current block according to the size parameter of the current block comprises: when both a width and a height of the current block are equal to 4, setting the block size index value of the current block equal to 0; when both the width and height of the current block are equal to 8 or only one of the width and height of the current block is equal to 4, setting the block size index value of the current block equal to 1; or when both the width and height of the current block do not meet the above conditions, setting the block size index value of the current block equal to 2.
1. A method for colour component prediction, applicable for an encoder and comprising: determining a prediction mode parameter of a current block; when the prediction mode parameter indicates that a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode is adopted to the current block, determining an MIP weight matrix and an MIP input sample matrix of the current block; and determining an intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP weight matrix, the MIP input sample matrix and a shift factor, wherein the shift factor is a fixed constant value, comprising: performing matrix multiplication processing on the MIP input sample matrix, the MIP weight matrix and the fixed constant value by use of a preset calculation model to obtain an MIP-based prediction block of the current block, wherein the MIP weight matrix of the current block is at least determined according to a block size index value of the current block.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 11,509,901 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/016,077. Similar rejections can be presented for US 12,256,080 B2 and US 11,930,181 B2.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-4 refer to "A method for colour component prediction”, Claims 5-8 refer to "A method for colour component prediction”, Claims 9-12 refer to "An encoder”, Claims 13-16 refer to "A decoder”, and Claims 17-20 refers to "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Claims 5-20 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-4, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-4, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20200344468 A1), hereinafter Lin, in view of Van der Auwera et al. (US 20200359050 A1), hereinafter Van, further in view of Huo et al. (“Fixed downshifting for 8-bit MIP”, JVET-O1127-v1, 15th Meeting, Gothenburg, SE, Server Date July 07, 2019), hereinafter Huo. Huo is cited in IDS by the applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method for colour component prediction, applicable for an encoder and comprising (Abstract, Fig. 5): determining a prediction mode parameter of a current block (Fig. 5, element S502, S504, [0009]); when the prediction mode parameter indicates that a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode is adopted to the current block (Fig. 5, element S504, matrix-based intra prediction decision), determining an MIP weight matrix and an MIP input sample matrix of the current block ([0010]-[0015]); and determining an intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP, the MIP input sample matrix, comprising: performing matrix multiplication processing on the MIP input sample matrix, by use of a preset calculation model to obtain an MIP-based prediction block of the current block, wherein the MIP of the current block is at least determined according to a block size index value of the current block ([0009]).
Lin discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Jahid does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section MIP weight matrix; shift factor.
However, Van from the same or similar endeavor teaches MIP weight matrix; shift factor ([0163], [0208]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin to incorporate the teachings of Van to improve coding efficiency (Van, [0175]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Lin in view of Van discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Jahid does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein the shift factor is a fixed constant value.
However, Huo from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the shift factor is a fixed constant value (Section 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin in view of Van to incorporate the teachings of Huo to improve MIP over look-up table mode (Huo, Conclusions). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Lin in view of Van further in view of Huo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed constant value is equal to 6 (Lin, Fig. 5, Van, [0163], [0208], Huo, Section 2).
Regarding claim 3, Jahid discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP weight matrix, the MIP input sample matrix and the shift factor further comprises: performing filtering processing on the MIP-based prediction block to obtain the intra prediction value of the current block, the MIP-based prediction block comprising prediction values of at least part of sample positions in the current block (Lin, Fig. 5, Van, [0163], [0173], [0181], [0208], Huo, Section 2).
Regarding claim 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-19, See Examiner’s Note.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487