DETAILED ACTION
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
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claims as currently recited refer to “a main angle”. Clarification is required to ascertain how ”a main angle” is determined or of any initial angle qualifies as “a main angle”.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Instant Application (19/025767)
US12244795
Claim 1: a method for intra-predicting a prediction block of a video image, the method comprising: selecting a directional intra-prediction mode from a set of directional intra-prediction modes, wherein the set of directional intra-prediction modes includes directional intra-prediction modes and extended directional intra-prediction modes, the directional intra-prediction modes are within a main angle, and the extended directional intra-prediction modes are within a complementary angle different from the main angle; determining, for a prediction sample of the prediction block of the video image, a reference sample from a set of reference samples based on the directional intra-prediction mode; and determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode.
Claim 1: A method for intra-predicting a non-square prediction block of a video image, the method comprising: determining a directional intra-prediction mode from a set of directional intra-prediction modes, wherein each directional intra-prediction mode corresponds to a different intra-prediction angle, and the set of directional intra-prediction modes consists of extended directional intra-prediction modes only applied to non-square blocks; determining, for a prediction sample of the non-square prediction block, a reference sample from a set of reference samples based on the directional intra-prediction mode; determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode; and outputting a bitstream to indicate the directional intra-prediction mode.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12244795. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because to apply a determined filter to square and non-square blocks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 Zhao et al. (US20180091825) (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The CRM including the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Zhao discloses, a bitstream including information (Fig. 1, 0037-0041; CRM with memory and processor including bitstream).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US20180091825) (hereinafter Zhao) in view of Budagavi (US20120147955) (hereinafter Budagavi).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a method for intra-predicting a prediction block of a video image, the method comprising:
selecting a directional intra-prediction mode from a set of directional intra-prediction modes, wherein the set of directional intra-prediction modes includes directional intra-prediction modes and extended directional intra-prediction modes, the directional intra-prediction modes are within a main angle, and the extended directional intra-prediction modes are within a complementary angle different from the main angle [Figs. 2-7, TBL1, 0031-0034, 0048-0051, 0072-0086; dynamic selection of intra prediction modes based on a variety of parameters and thresholds including angle and direction].
determining, for a prediction sample of the prediction block of the video image, a reference sample from a set of reference samples based on the directional intra-prediction mode [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Zhao discloses the limitations of the claim. Although, Zhao discloses determination of filter types based on a plurality of parameters, Zhao does not explicitly disclose determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode.
Budagavi more explicitly discloses determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode [ABS, 0009-0011, 0023-0028, 0039-0045; adaptive determination of application of filters based on intra prediction mode].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao with the teachings of Budagavi as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved prediction may be obtained by smoothing the values of the reference pixels (see Budagavi 0008).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses determining an intra-prediction angle corresponding to the directional intra-prediction mode; and selecting a filter based on the determined intra-prediction angle [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based in filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses selecting a filter from a set of filters based on a distance between the determined reference sample and a further reference sample of the prediction block of the video image [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 4, Zhao discloses wherein: determining whether to apply the filter to the determined reference sample comprises determining a filter length based on the directional intra-prediction mode; and the method further comprises when the filter length is 1, determining not to apply the filter to the determined reference sample; or when the filter length is 3 or 5, determining to apply the filter to the determined reference sample [0049-0057, 0086-0091, 0127-0133; determining filter type and length based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses further comprising: selecting a filter from a set of filters based on the directional intra-prediction mode [0049-0057, 0086-0091, 0127-0133; determining filter type and length based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses wherein the set of filters includes filters with different filter lengths that span 1, 3 or 5 adjacent reference samples [0049-0057, 0086-0091, 0127-0133; determining filter type and length based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses wherein each filter of the set of filters performs a different smoothing over the determined reference sample and one or more adjacent reference samples [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 9, Zhao discloses selecting a same filter for each directional intra-prediction mode from a first subset of the set of directional intra-prediction modes; and selecting a different filter for each directional intra-prediction mode from a second subset of the set of directional intra-prediction modes [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 10, Zhao discloses wherein the complementary angle is less than 45° [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 11, Zhao discloses a device for intra-predicting a prediction block of a video image, the device comprising:
at least one processor [Fig. 1, 0037-0041; CRM with memory and processor].
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device to [Fig. 1, 0037-0041; CRM with memory and processor].
select a directional intra-prediction mode from a set of directional intra-prediction modes, wherein the set of directional intra-prediction modes includes directional intra-prediction modes and extended directional intra-prediction modes, the directional intra-prediction modes are withina main angle, and the extended directional intra-prediction modes are within a complementary angle different from the main angle [Figs. 2-7, TBL1, 0031-0034, 0048-0051, 0072-0086; dynamic selection of intra prediction modes based on a variety of parameters and thresholds including angle and direction].
determine, for a prediction sample of the prediction block of the video image, a reference sample from a set of reference samples based on the directional intra-prediction mode[Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based in filter type, angle and direction].
Zhao discloses the limitations of the claim. Although, Zhao discloses determination of filter types based on a plurality of parameters, Zhao does not explicitly disclose determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode.
Budagavi more explicitly discloses determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode [ABS, 0009-0011, 0023-0028, 0039-0045; adaptive determination of application of filters based on intra prediction mode].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao with the teachings of Budagavi as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved prediction may be obtained by smoothing the values of the reference pixels (see Budagavi 0008).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao discloses wherein the programming instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the device to: determine an intra-prediction angle corresponding to the directional intra-prediction mode and select a filter based on the determined intra-prediction angle [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based in filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 13, Zhao discloses select a filter from a set of filters based on a distance between the determined reference sample and a further reference sample of the prediction block of the video image [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 14, Zhao discloses wherein: to determine whether to apply the filter to the determined reference sample, the programming instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device to: determine a filter length based on the directional intra-prediction mode; and the programming instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the device to: when the filter length is 1, determine not to apply the filter to the determined reference sample; or when the filter length is 3 or 5, determine to apply the filter to the determined reference sample [0049-0057, 0086-0091, 0127-0133; determining filter type and length based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 15, Zhao discloses select a filter from a set of filters based on the directional intra-prediction mode [0049-0057, 0086-0091, 0127-0133; determining filter type and length based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 16, Zhao discloses wherein the set of filters includes filters with different filter lengths that span 1, 3 or 5 adjacent reference samples [0049-0057, 0086-0091, 0127-0133; determining filter type and length based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 17, Zhao discloses wherein each filter of the set of filters performs a different smoothing over the determined reference sample and one or more adjacent reference samples [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 18, Zhao discloses wherein the programming instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the device to: select a same filter for each directional intra-prediction mode from a first subset of the set of directional intra-prediction modes; and select a different filter for each directional intra-prediction mode from a second subset of the set of directional intra-prediction modes [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 19, Zhao discloses wherein the complementary angle is less than 45° [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based on filter type, angle and direction].
Regarding claim 20, Zhao discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising [Fig. 1, 0037-0041; CRM with memory and processor].
a bitstream including information indicating a directional intra-prediction mode of a block, wherein the directional intra-prediction mode of the block is determined from a set of directional intra-prediction modes, each directional intra-prediction mode of the set of directional intra- prediction modes corresponds to a different intra-prediction angle, and wherein the set of directional intra-prediction modes includes directional intra-prediction modes and extended directional intra-prediction modes, the directional intra-prediction modes are within a main angle [Figs. 2-7, TBL1, 0031-0034, 0045-0051, 0072-0086; dynamic selection of intra prediction modes based on a variety of parameters and thresholds including angle and direction].
the extended directional intra-prediction modes are within a complementary angle different from the main angle [Figs. 2-7, 0108-0113, 0118-0122, 0130-0139, 0145-0152, 0161-0171; deriving extended reference samples based in filter type, angle and direction].
Zhao discloses the limitations of the claim. Although, Zhao discloses determination of filter types based on a plurality of parameters, Zhao does not explicitly disclose determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode.
Budagavi more explicitly discloses determining whether to apply a filter to the determined reference sample based on the directional intra-prediction mode [ABS, 0009-0011, 0023-0028, 0039-0045; adaptive determination of application of filters based on intra prediction mode].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao with the teachings of Budagavi as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved prediction may be obtained by smoothing the values of the reference pixels (see Budagavi 0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 including the resolution of any and all 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 matters.
The prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose wherein when a filter length of the different filter lengths is 1, a coefficient for the selected filter is [1] or when the filter length of the different filter lengths is 3, coefficients for the selected filter is [1, 2, 1], when taken in the environment of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm.
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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached at 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.
/TALHA M NAWAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483