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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 10, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12278961 (18132848). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. in re Karison, 136 USPO 184 (COPA 1963).
Claims 12-31 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11665347 (17378649). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. in re Karison, 136 USPO 184 (COPA 1963).
Claims 12-31 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 16-17, 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11109027 (16477430). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. in re Karison, 136 USPO 184 (COPA 1963).
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 12, 14-15, 19, 21-22, 26, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180098081A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”), in view of US 20170094313 A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao2”).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao discloses obtaining a first coding mode indicating a first 2D transform of a first set of 2D transforms for decoding a residual block when the first coding mode is enabled ([0183], wherein a coding mode is associated with a selected transform; [0184], wherein identifying a set of transforms based on characteristics of the coding mode and receiving an index; [0116], more transforms can be used and an index to the transforms from a pre-defined set of transform candidates which are derived from off-line training process is explicitly signaled; each Intra prediction direction may have its unique set of pairs of transforms. An index is signaled to specify which transform pair is chosen from the set.)
obtaining a second coding mode indicating a second 2D transform of a second set of 2D transforms for decoding the residual block when the second coding mode is enabled ([0183], wherein a coding mode is associated with a selected transform; [0184], wherein identifying a set of transforms based on characteristics of the coding mode and receiving an index; [0116], more transforms can be used and an index to the transforms from a pre-defined set of transform candidates which are derived from off-line training process is explicitly signaled; each Intra prediction direction may have its unique set of pairs of transforms. An index is signaled to specify which transform pair is chosen from the set.
wherein one of the first set of 2D transforms and the second set of 2D transforms is a set of separable 2D transforms (Table 1 shows separable transforms; [0145]) and the other of the first set of 2D transforms and the second set of 2D transforms is a set of non-separable 2D transforms ([0125], shows non-separable; [0145]),
decoding the residual block according to the first coding mode or the second coding mode or both the first coding mode and the second coding mode ([0144])
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the first set of 2D transforms has an enablement relationship with the second set of 2D transforms
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao2 discloses wherein the first set of 2D transforms has an enablement relationship with the second set of 2D transforms (Fig 5 shows a second transform being dependent on the first transform); and decoding the residual block according to the first coding mode or the second coding mode or both the first coding mode and the second coding mode based on the enablement relationship ([0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method disclosed by Zhao to disclose wherein the first set of 2D transforms has an enablement relationship with the second set of 2D transforms as taught by Zhao2, to improve coding efficiency ([0140]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao2 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the second coding mode is obtained from a first set of coding modes and cardinality of the first set of coding modes is defined according to the first coding mode (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao2 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein at least one of the coding modes of the set of coding modes is defined according to the first coding mode ([Fig 7b]).
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 19 (device is shown in fig 1 of zhao2)
Regarding claim 21, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 14 and are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 15 and are applicable for claim 22.
Regarding claim 26, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 26
Regarding claim 30, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 31.
Claims 13, 16, 20, 23, 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180098081A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”), in view of US 20170094313 A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao2”), in further view of US 20100135387 A1-Divorra Escoda et al (hereinafter referred to as “Div”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao discloses the method of claim 12,
Zhao and Zhao2 fail to disclose wherein the encoding of the residual block according to the second coding mode is enabled responsive to a determination that a skip mode is disabled and that the first coding mode belongs to another set of coding modes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Div wherein the encoding of the residual block according to the second coding mode is enabled responsive to a determination that a skip mode is disabled and that the first coding mode belongs to another set of coding modes ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method disclosed by Zhao and Zhao2 to disclose wherein the encoding of the residual block according to the second coding mode is enabled responsive to a determination that a skip mode is disabled and that the first coding mode belongs to another set of coding modes as taught by Div, to improve coding efficiency ([0049]).
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 13 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 13 and are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 23, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 16 and are applicable for claim 23.
Regarding claim 27, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 13 and are applicable for claim 27
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18, 24-25, 28-29, 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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights