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 .
Detailed Action
This office Action is in response to an application filed on 01/17/2025 is a CON of 18/492,596 10/23/2023 PAT 12238285, which is a CON of 17/277,987 03/19/2021 PAT 11800099, which is a 371 of PCT/KR2019/012198 09/20/2019, in which claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2018-0113148 09/20/2018. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 02/24/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 and 10/03/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, 20, and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 11,800,099 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 11,800,099 B2
Instant Application:-19/029,463
1. A method of decoding an image, the method comprising: identifying a region spatially partitioned into a plurality of coding blocks by partitioning an image; and determining which prediction mode among a plurality of prediction modes comprising inter prediction and intra prediction is used as a prediction mode of the region based on a horizontal size of the region, a vertical size of the region and a partition shape indicating a direction in which the region is partitioned, wherein the region is partitioned into a plurality of leaf nodes according to a partition tree structure, wherein the plurality of coding blocks correspond to the plurality of leaf nodes, and wherein the prediction mode of the region is used as a prediction mode of all of the plurality of leaf nodes of the partition tree structure.
1. A method of decoding an image, the method comprising: identifying a region by partitioning an image; and determining a prediction mode of the region based on at least one of a size of the region, a partition shape, and a coding parameter of the region, wherein the prediction mode of the region is determined as a prediction mode of all coding blocks included in the region.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 11,800,099 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/029,463. Similar rejection can be presented for US 12,238,285 B2.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-10 refer to "A method of decoding an image”, Claims 11-19 refer to "A method of encoding an image”, and Claim 20 refers to "A non-transitory computer-readable recordable medium”. Claims 11-20 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-10, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-10, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minezawa et al. (US 20160330468 A1), hereinafter Minezawa, in view of Ma et al. (“Description of Core Experiment: Partitioning, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET), JVET-J1021_r5, 10th Meeting, San Diego, US, pages 1-33, April 20, 2018), hereinafter Ma. Ma is cited by the applicant in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Minezawa discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising (Abstract): identifying a region by partitioning an image (Fig. 2, element ST1, partitioning); and determining a prediction mode of the region based on at least one of a size of the region (Fig. 2, ST2, Coding more, Fig. 39, element 1, Block Partitioning Unit).
Minezawa discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Minezawa does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section a partition shape, and a coding parameter of the region, wherein the prediction mode of the region is determined as a prediction mode of all coding blocks included in the region.
However, Ma from the same or similar endeavor teaches a partition shape, and a coding parameter of the region, wherein the prediction mode of the region is determined as a prediction mode of all coding blocks included in the region (Section 3.1, Partitioning methods, partitioning based on CU shapes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minezawa to incorporate the teachings of Ma to improve performance from the potential of each partitioning method (Ma, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Minezawa in view of Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the region corresponds to a single node of a partition tree structure of a CTU (Coding Tree Unit), or a child node thereof (Ma, Section 3.1).
Regarding claim 3, Minezawa in view of Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the size of the region comprises at least one of a width, a height, an area, and a number of pixels of the region (Ma, Section 3.1, pixels, shapes, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Minezawa in view of Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the partition shape of the region comprises at least one of whether or not to partition the region, a partition tree, and a partition direction (Ma, Section 3.1).
Regarding claim 5, Minezawa in view of Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coding parameter of the region comprises at least one of a slice type including the region, and a syntax element related to the prediction mode of the region (Minezawa, Fig. 2, [0136], Ma, Section 3.1).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minezawa in view of Ma further in view of Lee (US 20200145648 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Minezawa in view of Ma discloses all the elements of claim 6 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein when the size of the region is a predetermined size and the partition shape is a predetermined partition shape, the prediction mode of the region is determined as intra-prediction.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein when the size of the region is a predetermined size and the partition shape is a predetermined partition shape, the prediction mode of the region is determined as intra-prediction ([0308], default intra prediction for size or shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minezawa in view of Ma to incorporate the teachings of Lee for efficient intra prediction (Lee, [0005]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 7, Minezawa in view of Ma further in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the predetermined size is 64 pixels, and the partition shape is a quad-tree partition or ternary tree partition (Ma, Section 3.1).
Regarding claim 8, Minezawa in view of Ma further in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the predetermined size is 32 pixels, and the partition shape is a binary-tree partition (Ma, Section 3.1).
Regarding claim 9, Minezawa in view of Ma further in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when the size of the region is a predetermined size and the partition shape is a predetermined partition shape, the prediction mode of the region is determined based on a slice type including the region (Minezawa, Fig. 2, [0136], Ma, Section 3.1).
Regarding claim 10, Minezawa in view of Ma further in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 9, wherein when the slice type is not an I slice, the prediction mode of the region is determined based on the coding parameter of the region (Minezawa, Fig. 2, [0136], Ma, Section 3.1).
Regarding claim 11-20, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights