DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6, is objected to, because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, additionally recites the subject matter of claim 5, after the end-claim punctuation;
“The method of claim 1, wherein the set of angular prediction directions includes angular prediction directions indexed in the range [2; 66] that are defined from 45 degree to -135 degree in clockwise direction, where mode 2 corresponds to 45 degree angle and mode 66 corresponds to -135 degree angle.”.
It is believed that this represents an inadvertent typographical error, hence will not be considered for examination.
Double Patenting
4. Claims 1-2 of the instant Application No. 19/026,871 is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of the issued patent US 11,856,184 and of the claim 1 of the patent US 12.278,950 (herein “conflicting patents”) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, base on the subject matter of the instant claim 1 is obviated by the same matter recited at the issued patent and being fully encompassed at the claim 1 of the conflicting patent, albeit the additional limitation reciting; “wherein a greater number of prediction directions are available along a longer side of said rectangular block than along a shorter side of said rectangular block; and”.
In this analysis it is determined that the said limitation represents an obvious coding mode using wide-angle intra-prediction directional modes as applied to the rectangular partitioned coding blocks, extending to be greater along the longer side of the prediction/current block, and based on the rectangular W/H dimensional ratio to predict the video samples of the rectangular block reciting;
“wherein angular prediction directions corresponding to the opposite of wide angle directions are removed to maintain the same number of total directions, predicting a video sample belonging to the rectangular block based on at least one sample of a neighboring block determined by the wide angle mode …“, where the ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious to attribute the respective directional indices being in the limited range of [2, 66] to have actually correspond to the respective directional angles of the index 2 for 45 degrees and of the directional index 66 to represent -135 degrees when computed in clockwise direction. The scope of the instant claim may not be distinctly recited from the “conflicting patents” where the gist of the claim relies on the rectangular block width/height ratio and as recited; “wherein angular prediction directions corresponding to the opposite of wide angle directions are removed to maintain the same number of total directions,” (Id., Claim 6 of the ”conflicting patents” ).
The rationale for double patenting determination relies on the status establishing that:
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors.
5. Claims 1- 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dongcheol Kim et al., (hereinafter Kim) (US 2021/0044808) in lieu of For. KR 10-2018-0009660, Jan.25, 2018, in view of Geonjung Ko et al., (hereinafter Ko) (US 2021/0037259) in lieu of KR 2017-0138737 and KR 2017-0140524; KR 2018-0008498 and KR 2018-0027814.
Re Claim 1. (New) Kim discloses, in a video decoder (decoder Par.[0018, 0041, 0050-0051] Figs.2 or 6), a method, comprising:
decoding an intra prediction mode for a rectangular block of a picture from a bitstream (the intra prediction mode applied to rectangular blocks in Fig.9 or 21, Par.[0005-0006, 0008, 0018, 0032-0033, 0050-0051] Figs.16 or 17), wherein the intra prediction mode is associated with an index corresponding to an angular prediction (directional prediction mode index Par.[0011-0015, 0079]) direction among a set of angular prediction directions (predicting a video sample of a rectangular block based on the neighboring blocks, unit 150 in Fig.1 Par.[0042], or Par.[0161] Fig.21 and [0169]-[0170], where the angular prediction mode is being adjusted to the shape of the current block, Par.[0081] and/or [0083]-[0087], and according to sets of angular intra-prediction direction indices per Figs.6, 16 or 17 Par.[0032-0034, 0070]),
mapping the intra prediction mode to a wide angle mode (the wide angle intra prediction mode is mapped Par.[0076] and Figs.17 or 18 Par.[0086, 0127]) based on a shape of the block and a ratio between the width and the height of the rectangular block, wherein the wide angle mode is selected from among a set of wide angle modes (the wide angle prediction mode is based on the rectangular size and shape and the width and height of the block, Par.[0071, 0074, 0078, 0081, 0083, 0085, 0088-0089] Fig.10 etc.]),
wherein the set of wide angle modes includes angular prediction directions and wide angle directions extending the angular prediction directions along the longer side of a rectangular-shaped block (wide angle mode directions by longer block sides at Par.[0083-0089] Figs.9 to 11, or Fig.19), and
predicting a video sample belonging to the rectangular block based on at least one sample of a neighboring block determined by the wide angle mode (predicting the current block in wide angel intra prediction mode Par.[0071]) decoding the rectangular block using the predicted video sample (decoding the rectangular block by using the wide angle intra prediction mode of video samples derived from the rectangular block and the neighboring samples, per Fig.2, Abstract, Par.[0006, 0050, 0057]).
In order to emphasize the extend of the intra coding method involving mapping of the basic and the wide-angle prediction directions to fixed index value numbers, it is determined that the art to Ko teaches about,
wherein angular prediction directions corresponding to the opposite of wide angle directions are removed to maintain the same number of total directions (removing intra-prediction modes, Par.[0172]),
One of ordinary skill would have found obvious to combine the common methods of coding the video current block based on basic and extended i.e., wide-mode prediction modes being mapped and indexed according to the rectangular current block shape in Kim, and Ko determining an extended indexed prediction mode according to the shape and size of the current block, where both apply similar coding methods of intra-prediction with the recited claims, in order to obtain the advantage of increased coding efficiency and reduce signaling overhead when extending the prediction modes for the current block, thus deeming the combination predictable in terms of the claimed matter. A similar method of video coding method and apparatus is described in Awera US 11,128,872 at (Abstract), by which applying wide angle intra prediction based on the size, shape of the current video block data, thus obviating the rationale of combining the arts to Kim and Ko.
Re Claim 2. (New) Kim and Ko disclose, the method of claim 1,
Kim teaches, wherein the set of angular prediction directions includes angular prediction directions indexed in the range [2; 66] that are defined from 45 degree to -135 degree in clockwise direction, where mode 2 corresponds to 45 degree angle and mode 66 corresponds to -135 degree angle (the index range [2, 66] Par.[0070] in Fig.6 and angular prediction range of 45o to -135o, at Par.[0071-0075, 0081-0084] Figs.8, 9, etc.).
Re Claim 3. (New) Kim and Ko disclose, the method of claim 2, wherein the mapping the intra prediction mode to a wide angle mode further comprises:
Kim teaches that, if the width of the rectangular block is greater than the height of the rectangular block, the mapped wide angle mode corresponds to a wide angle direction extending the angular prediction direction beyond the -135 degree angular direction towards the top reference array of a top neighboring block (the width/height is 1:2 per Fig.10b Par.[0085] extending the angle to -135o); and
if the height of the rectangular block is greater than the width of the rectangular block, the mapped wide angle mode corresponds to a wide angle direction extending the angular prediction direction beyond the 45 degree angular direction towards the left reference array of a left neighboring block (the width/height is 2:1 per Fig.10a extending the angle to 45o, Par.[0085]).
Re Claim 4. (New) This claim represents the apparatus, decoding an intra prediction mode for a rectangular block of a picture from a bitstream, comprising a memory and a processor per Kim:(memory and processor at Par.[0175]), configured to perform each and every limitation claimed as being encompassed at the method Claim 1, hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 5. (New) This claim represents the apparatus, decoding an intra prediction mode for a rectangular block of a picture from a bitstream, comprising a memory and a processor per Kim:(memory and processor at Par.[0175]), configured to perform each and every limitation limitation claimed as being encompassed at the method Claim 2, hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 6. (New) This claim represents the apparatus, decoding an intra prediction mode for a rectangular block of a picture from a bitstream, comprising a memory and a processor per Kim:(memory and processor at Par.[0175]), configured to perform each and every limitation claimed as being encompassed at the method Claim 3, hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 7. (New) This claim represents the video encoder a method, of encoding a rectangular block of a picture using angular intra prediction, by implementing each and every limitation of the decoding claim 1, in reverse order at the prediction loop of the encoder, per Kim: (the encoder at Abstract, Fig.1, Par.[0017, 0041]), hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 8. (New) This claim represents the video encoding method, of encoding a rectangular block of a picture using angular intra prediction, by implementing each and every limitation of the decoding claim 2, in reverse order at the prediction loop of the encoder, per Kim: (the encoder at Abstract, Fig.1, Par.[0017, 0041]), hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 9. (New) This claim represents the video encoding method, of encoding a rectangular block of a picture using angular intra prediction, by implementing each and every limitation of the decoding claim 3, in reverse order at the prediction loop of the encoder, per Kim: (the encoder at Abstract, Fig.1, Par.[0017, 0041]), hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 10. (New) This claim represents the apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the encoding method of claim 7, taught by Kim: (the encoder at Abstract, Fig.1, Par.[0017, 0041]), hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 11. (New) This claim represents the apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the encoding method of claim 8, taught by Kim: (the encoder at Abstract, Fig.1, Par.[0017, 0041]), hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 12. (New) This claim represents the apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the encoding method of claim 9, taught by Kim: (the encoder at Abstract, Fig.1, Par.[0017, 0041]), hence it is rejected over the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 13. (New) Kim and Ko disclose,
Kim teaches about, the non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor perform the method of Claim 1 (a memory considered non-transitory storage medium, storing the software code i.e., instructions, to be used by a processor in the decoding process, per Fig.2 Par.[0006, 0018, 0175]).
Re Claim 14. (New) A non-transitory,
Kim teaches about, computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor perform the method of Claim 7 (a memory considered non-transitory storage medium, storing the software code i.e., instructions, to be used by a processor in the encoding process, per Fig.1 Par.[0006, 0017, 0175]).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is further listed:
Lim (US 2019/0356913); Lee (US 2020/0366930) and Lee (US 2021/0014485).
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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 on 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 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487