DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/18/2025. Claims 2-21 have been examined.
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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for provisional application number
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware 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 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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-21 of U.S. patent Application No. 19/092,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the claims cover substantially the same subject matter. The table below shows only a sample of how each of these claims is anticipated by claims such as claim 1 of U.S. patent application 19/092,898.
Instant Application
U.S. patent application 19/092,898
Claim 2: A computer system comprising one or more processing units and memory, wherein the computer system implements a video encoder configured to perform operations comprising: reconstructing first and second blocks of a picture, wherein the picture includes at least some blocks encoded using intra block copy prediction; and performing in-loop deblock filtering across a boundary between the first and second blocks, one of the first and second blocks having been encoded using intra block copy prediction, and the other of the first and second blocks having been encoded using inter-picture prediction, wherein the performing the in-loop deblock filtering includes adjusting the in-loop deblock filtering, and wherein the adjusting the in-loop deblock filtering includes: checking (a) presence/absence of non-zero transform coefficients for the first and second blocks, (b) reference index values for the first and second blocks, and/or (c) value of a block vector or motion vector for each of the first and second blocks; and assigning a filtering strength value, wherein the assigned filtering strength value indicates moderate filtering if either of the first and second blocks includes any non-zero transform coefficients.
Claim 2: In a computer system that implements a video encoder, a method comprising: encoding a picture of a video sequence, thereby producing encoded data, the picture including first and second blocks, wherein one of the first and second blocks is encoded using intra block copy prediction, and the other of the first and second blocks is encoded using inter- picture prediction, and wherein the encoding includes, as part of a motion compensation loop:reconstructing the first and second blocks of a picture; and performing in-loop deblock filtering across a boundary between the first and second blocks, wherein the performing the in-loop deblock filtering includes adjusting the in- loop deblock filtering, and wherein the adjusting the in-loop deblock filtering includes: checking (a) presence/absence of non-zero transform coefficients for the first and second blocks, (b) reference index values for the first and second blocks, and/or (c) value of a block vector or motion vector for each of the first and second blocks; and assigning a filtering strength value, wherein the assigned filtering strength value indicates moderate filtering if either of the first and second blocks includes any non-zero transform coefficients; and outputting the encoded data as part of a bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights