DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under JP 2019-114961 filed on 6/20/2019.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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, 140F.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 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ761 (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 non-statutory 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)(l) - 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.Thefiling date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AI A/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-l.jsp.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,282.
Although the claims at issue are not identical because the present invention claim more narrow embodiments of those claimed in the US Patent, where the present invention also claims the following: the threshold value is defined such that when the internal bit depth is increased by 1, the threshold is doubled.
However, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim image decoding device/method/program comprising: a class determination unit configured to use, as an input, a decoded signal prior to the filtering process and determine which class of filter is to be used; a parameter determination unit configured to determine a filter coefficient for each class; and a filter unit configured to use, as an input, the decoded signal prior to the filtering process and output a filtered decoded signal, wherein the filter unit is configured to perform clipping processing on a differential value between a reference pixel value and a pixel value of the decoded signal prior to the filtering process such that an absolute value of the differential value is less than or equal to a predefined threshold value, and to generate the filtered decoded signal through the linear weighted addition of the value after the clipping processing is performed, the filter coefficient and the pixel value of the decoded signal prior to the filtering process; the threshold value is set for each class and each filter coefficient; and the threshold value for a luma signal is set to be greater than or equal to the threshold value for a chroma signal regardless of an internal bit depth.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The following language from claim 2 is presumed a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) should be invoked because of the non-structural language modified by functional language:
step A of using, as an input, a decoded signal prior to a filtering process and determining which class of filter is to be used
step B of determining a filter coefficient for each class
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) can be found in claims 1 and 3:
a class determination unit configured to use, as an input, a decoded signal prior to the filtering process and determine which class of filter is to be used
a parameter determination unit configured to determine a filter coefficient for each class in claims
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) from claims 1-3 to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
*step A and a Class Determination Unit* - “the class determination unit 150A is configured to divide the decoded signal prior to the filtering process into small blocks and determine the class to be used for each of the blocks. For example, the class determination unit 150A is capable of determining, for each 4×4-pixel block, which class of filter is to be used from among 25 types… any determination method can be used as the class determination method as long as the method enables a determination to be made by using, as an input, only information that is obtained on both the image encoding device 100 side and the image decoding device 200 side. For example, in Versatile Video Coding (Draft 5), JVET-N1001, the foregoing class determination is made by using the gradient of the pixel values of the decoded signal prior to the filtering process. By using only the information that is obtained on both the image encoding device 100 side and the image decoding device 200 side, the same class determination can be made on both the image decoding device 200 side and the image encoding device 100 side, and hence there is no need to transmit the class determination information from the image encoding device 100 side to the image decoding device 200 side” (see Specification [0058]-[0060]).
*step B and a parameter determination unit* - “The parameter determination unit 150C is configured to determine adaptive loop filter-related parameters and output same to the encoding unit 140 as additional information by using, as inputs, an input image signal and a decoded signal prior to the filtering process, and to output the parameters thus determined to the filter unit 150B. Examples of these parameters include filter sets in frame units. Here, one filter set contains a maximum of 25 classes’ worth of luma signal filters and one class’s worth of chroma signal filters. For the filters of each class, a filter coefficient value, a flag indicating whether to perform clipping processing, and an index or the like for the threshold value used in the clipping processing for each filter coefficient when the clipping processing is performed for the class are determined. The parameter determination unit 150C holds a plurality of filter sets for a certain frame and, as described subsequently, is capable of selecting usage of any filter set for each region” (see Specification [0106]-[0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is to be filed to overcome the double patent rejection set forth above set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu, US 2020/0374518 A1
Chujoh et al, US 2020/0236381 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483