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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In “when the height of the block is smaller than its width: minToUseLeft = N x cuHeight / (cuWidth+1), or minToUseLeft = N/2 otherwise”, it seems not reasonable that minToUseLeft may be larger than N/2 even when the height of the block is smaller than its width. For example, when cuHeight = 12, cuWidth = 16, minToUseLeft = N x cuHeight / (cuWidth+1) = N x 12 / 17; when cuHeight = 16, cuWidth = 12, minToUseLeft = N/2.
While, with a different ratio of cuHeight / cuWidth, minToUseLeft may be smaller than N/2 when the height of the block is smaller than its width. For example, when cuHeight = 8, cuWidth = 16, minToUseLeft = N x cuHeight / (cuWidth+1) = N x 8 / 17; when cuHeight = 16, cuWidth = 8, minToUseLeft = N/2.
If it is not by design, appropriate correction is required, including the disclosure in the specification.
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11936871 B2 or claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 12278967 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11936871 B2 discloses “when a block height is greater than or equal to a block width or a number of valid neighboring samples at a left of the block is greater than or equal to a number of valid neighboring samples at a top of the block, first adding all valid neighboring samples at the left of the block in the set of N valid samples and adding valid neighboring samples at the top of the block only to complete the set up to N valid samples; and when the block height is smaller than the block width or the number of valid neighboring samples at the left of the block is smaller than the number of valid neighboring samples at the top of the block, first adding all valid neighboring samples at the top of the block in the set of N valid samples and adding valid neighboring samples at the left of the block only to complete the set up to N valid samples”. It covers claim 1 of the instant application: “selecting a subset of N valid samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples in the subset of N samples are balanced based on block dimensions or based on both numbers of top and left valid samples”.
Also, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12278967 B2 discloses “replacing at least one non-valid sample by another valid sample such that a number of valid samples on the left of the current block and a number of valid samples on the top the current block are both larger than or equal to N”. It covers claim 1 of the instant application: “selecting a subset of N valid samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples in the subset of N samples are balanced based on block dimensions or based on both numbers of top and left valid samples”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20170150183 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Zhang discloses A method of decoding a block of samples of a picture of a video ([0007] a method of decoding encoded video data, reconstructing, by the video decoder, samples of a coding block by adding samples of a predictive block to corresponding samples of the residual block for the TU of the CU), the method comprising:
determining, for the block of samples, a set of NM valid samples from a set of neighboring top and left reconstructed samples ([0057] The reconstructed luma reference samples and the reconstructed chroma reference samples are samples along the top and left sides of the PU; [0060] available reference samples; figure 19, [0188] The first set of pixels includes available reconstructed neighboring pixels in a left column and an above row of a current CU (i.e., a CU that contains the current PU));
selecting a subset of N valid samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples in the subset of N samples are balanced based on block dimensions or based on both numbers of top and left valid samples ([0059] The set of luma reference samples may comprise luma samples neighboring a top side of a non-square luma block of a current picture of the video data and luma samples neighboring a left side of the non-square luma block. The set of chroma reference samples may comprise chroma samples neighboring the top side of a non-square chroma block and chroma samples neighboring the left side of the non-square chroma block. Furthermore, the video coder may sub-sample the set of luma reference samples such that a total number of luma reference samples in the set of luma reference samples that neighbor a longer side of the non-square luma block is the same as a total number of luma reference samples of the set of luma reference samples that neighbor a shorter side of the non-square luma block; [0060] by sub-sampling the set of luma reference samples such that the total number of luma reference samples that neighbor the longer side of the non-square luma block is the same as the total number of luma reference samples that neighbor a shorter side of the non-square luma block, the reference samples that neighbor a short or long side of the non-square prediction block may be unavailable, in this case, there may be no need to perform the sub-sampling process to available reference samples located at the other side (Having the same numbers of available samples corresponds to selecting the numbers balanced based on block dimensions or based on both numbers of top and left valid samples));
determining local illumination compensation parameters from the subset of N valid samples and corresponding reference samples in a reference block ([0068] the formula defining the IC parameter b in 3D-HEVC involves a division operation by the number of reference samples neighboring the current CU's top and left sides; [0186] a IC process derives IC parameters based on neighboring samples of a current CU and neighboring samples of a reference block; figure 19, [0188] The first set of pixels includes available reconstructed neighboring pixels in a left column and an above row of a current CU (i.e., a CU that contains the current PU). The second set of pixels includes corresponding neighboring pixels of a reference block of the current CU; [0189] FIG. 19 illustrates neighboring pixels used to estimate parameters in the IC model); and
reconstructing the block from a prediction block obtained by applying, on the reference block, local illumination compensation based on the determined local illumination compensation parameters (figure 24, [0335] prediction processing unit 200 performs the illumination compensation techniques; figure 25, [0355] prediction processing unit 252 performs the illumination compensation techniques).
Regarding claim 3. Zhang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein N is a power of two ([0060] the total number of reference samples in the set of luma reference samples is a power of 2).
Regarding claim 4. Zhang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples are balanced based on block dimensions or based on both numbers of top and left valid samples comprises selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples are balanced proportionally to a ratio between a height and a width of the block (figure 13, [0142] the small circles indicate sample values used for determining the LM parameters α and β; figure 19, [0188]-[0189]).
Regarding claim 6. Zhang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples are balanced based on block dimensions or based on both numbers of top and left valid samples comprises:
selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples are balanced proportionally to a ratio between a number of valid samples on the left and a number of valid samples on the top (figure 13, [0142] the small circles indicate sample values used for determining the LM parameters α and β; figure 19, [0188]-[0189]).
Regarding claim 7. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1 (corresponding encoding method).
Regarding claim 11. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14. The same analysis has been stated in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20170150183 A1) in view of Strom et al. (Description of Core Experiment 1 (CE1): Post-prediction and post-reconstruction filtering).
Regarding claim 2. Strom discloses that a neighboring reconstructed sample is considered as a valid sample on a condition that the sample has not been coded with a mode amongst a set of coding modes and/or with a parameter amongst a set of parameters values (CE 1.5 local illumination compensation, Usage of reconstructed intra coded, CIIP and IBC blocks, as this would have impact on complexity and parallel implementation pipelining (test with and without, and further study the impact). Disable for CIIP and IBC blocks. It is not applied to bi-prediction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Zhang and Strom, to disable illumination compensation for intra coded, CIIP and IBC blocks; and for bi-prediction, in order to better implement parallel coding.
Regarding claim 10. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (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 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488