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
Claims 1-4 filed on 01/16/2025 are pending.
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).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 12,301,835 (U.S Patent Application No. 18/226416). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patent to meet the limitations claimed in the instant application (the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding an intra prediction mode for a chroma block). Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the U.S patent claims.
This is a non-provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 19/025187 vs. Patent No. 12,301,835 (Application No. 18/226416)
Appl. 19/025187
Appl. 18/226416 (US 12,301,835)
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode for a chroma block;
deriving reference samples of the chroma block;
deriving prediction samples for the chroma block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples;
performing filtering on the prediction samples; and
generating a reconstructed picture based on residual samples for the chroma block and the prediction samples,
wherein the reference samples include an upper reference sample of the chroma block and a left reference sample of the chroma block,
wherein the intra prediction mode for the chroma block is derived
using an intra prediction mode of a corresponding luma position corresponding to a specific position of the chroma block,
wherein the chroma block is a square block,
wherein based on a partition structure of a luma component being different from a partition structure of a chroma component, a center sample position is used for the corresponding luma position in a corresponding luma area for the chroma block, and
wherein the filtering is performed based on the intra prediction mode of the chroma block, a size of the chroma block, and a position of a prediction sample.
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode for a chroma block;
deriving prediction samples for the chroma block based on the intra prediction mode; and
generating a reconstructed picture based on residual samples for the chroma block and the prediction samples,
wherein the deriving intra prediction mode for the chroma block comprises:
deriving a luma position corresponding to a specific position of the chroma block in a corresponding luma block corresponding to the chroma block; and
setting an intra prediction mode of the corresponding luma position to the intra prediction mode of the chroma block,
wherein for the chroma block being a square block,
only a center sample position is used for the corresponding luma position among a top-left sample position, a top-right sample position, a bottom-left sample position, a bottom right sample position, and the center sample position in a corresponding luma area for the chroma block
without signaling information indicating one among the top-left sample position, the top-right sample position, the bottom-left sample position, the bottom right sample position, and the center sample position, and wherein based on that a luma position corresponding to a top-left position of the chroma block is (x, y), the corresponding luma position is derived as (x+a width of the corresponding luma block/2, y+ a height of the corresponding luma block/2).
Claim 1 of the U.S Patent (on the right column of Table 1) does not disclose explicitly the following limitations in claim 1 of the instant application:
performing filtering on the prediction samples;
However in the same field of endeavor Choe et al. (“Choe”) [US 2016/0309184 A1] discloses the deficient claim as follows:
performing filtering on the prediction samples [para. 0012, 0034-0035, 0044: ‘generates the prediction block by applying the LM chroma mode to the luma pixel low-pass filtered by the low pass filter’; Equation 1; ‘remove high frequency region of Luma (G) pixel by using low pass filter (LPF)’.]
Claim 1 of the U.S Patent and Choe are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention perform filtering on the prediction samples.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488