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 amendment filed on 06/04/2026.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,611,765. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,611,765, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-19, and 21-22 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the combined subject matter as shown in claims 3-5, 7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent Number 11,611,765 disclose all the elements and steps of the independent claims of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,829. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,829, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-19, and 21-22 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the independent claims of U.S. Patent Number 12,244,829 disclose all the elements and steps of the independent claims of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bordes (“Description of SDR, HDR, and 360 degrees video coding technology proposal by Qualcomm and Technicolor – medium complexity version”).
As to claim 20, Bordes teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a stored bitstream formatted to include: data representative of a picture part (Section 2.1.1: Bitstream structure, Pages 3-8);
and at a block level of the picture part, data representative of an indication providing for selecting for a block, a refinement parameter table from among a plurality of refinement parameter tables associated to a component refinement mode that applies to a reconstructed version of a component of the picture part (see Pages 31-32, Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3; see Pages 44-45, Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2; see Page 64, Section 5.13).
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art made of record in regards to applicant’s claimed invention is as follows:
Bordes et al. (“Description of SDR, HDR, and 360 degrees video coding technology proposal by Qualcomm and Technicolor – medium complexity version”) discloses decoding an indication of a refinement mode being applied to a reconstructed signal per block of a picture part, wherein the refinement mode is based on a refinement parameter (see Pages 31-32, Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3; see Pages 44-45, Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2; see Page 64, Section 5.13); and refining the picture part based on the indication (see Pages 31-32, Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3; see Pages 44-45, Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2; see Page 64, Section 5.13; also see Abstract).
Xiu et al. (US 2018/0359480) discloses video coding systems and methods using an enhanced motion compensated picture. In exemplary embodiments, an enhanced motion compensated picture is generated by applying at least one high-pass filter to the motion compensated picture and adding the output of the filter to the motion compensated picture. Coefficients of the high-pass filter are selected by comparing the enhanced motion compensated picture to an original picture. The selected coefficients may be quantized and entropy coded into a bit stream. The high-pass filter may be a cross-plane filter, in which a luma component, which may be an enhanced luma component, is high-pass filtered and the output of the filter is added to at least one of the chroma components to generate an enhanced chroma component (abstract).
Zhai et al. (US 2015/0350687) discloses methods for chroma deblock filtering processes in video coding and processing systems such as within the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard. Chroma deblock filtering of reconstructed video samples may be performed to remove blockiness artifacts and reduce color artifacts without over-smoothing. In a first method, chroma deblocking may be performed for boundary samples of a smallest transform size, regardless of partitions and coding modes. In a second method, chroma deblocking may be performed when a boundary strength is greater than 0. In a third method, chroma deblocking may be performed regardless of boundary strengths. In a fourth method, the type of chroma deblocking to be performed may be signaled in a slice header by a flag. Furthermore, luma deblock filtering techniques may be applied to chroma deblock filtering (abstract and [0001]).
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1, 15, 16, and 19, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner maintains the double patenting rejections since applicant’s amendments to the independent claims are not sufficient to overcome the claimed subject matter of U.S. Patent Numbers 11,611,765 and 12,244,829.
Furthermore, Examiner maintains the description of the Bores reference since a block can be broadly interpreted to be a slice. Therefore, based on the fact that a block can be broadly interpreted to be a slice, Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 20 even if the second portion of the aforementioned claim is given patentable weight (see above rejection). In other words, using at least one refinement parameter table in a refinement mode based on a parameter signaled in a slice header, as shown in the Bordes reference, meets the limitation of providing an indication at a block level to select a refinement parameter table from among a plurality of refinement parameter tables associated to a component refinement mode.
In view of the above reasons, Examiner maintains all rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights