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 .
Priority
2. This application is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/909,156, filed Oct. 8, 2024, which is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/225,205, filed Jul. 24, 2023 (U.S. Pat. No. 12,155,821 issued Nov. 26, 2024), which is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/523,025, filed on Nov. 10, 2021 (U.S. Pat. No. 11,902,509 issued Feb. 13, 2024), which is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/336,219, filed on Mar. 25, 2019, (U.S. Pat. No. 11,202,063 issued Dec. 14, 2021), which is a U.S. National Stage Application of International Application No. PCT/KR2017/010469, filed on Sep. 22, 2017, which claims the benefit under 35 USC 119(a) and 365(b) of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2016-0127874, filed on Oct. 4, 2016, in the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the entire disclosures of all these applications being expressly incorporated by reference into the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025, 02/12/2025, 07/18/2025, 08/18/2025, and 10/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(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.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected on are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of 18/228,205 (now U.S Patent No. US 12155821 B2) in view of Liu et al. (US 2013/0188703A1) (hereinafter Liu). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Please see further example below. Differences are bolded in the following comparison table.
Instant Application 19/030,064
Claim 1:
Conflicting application 18/228,205 (now U.S Patent No. US 12155821B2)
Claim 1:
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: determining that an inter-color component intra prediction is applied to a current chroma block; deriving luma neighboring reference samples of a luma block related to the current chroma block; deriving downsampled luma neighboring reference samples based on the luma neighboring reference samples; deriving chroma neighboring reference samples for the current chroma block; deriving prediction parameters based on the downsampled luma neighboring reference samples and the chroma neighboring reference samples, wherein the prediction parameters include a scaling factor a and an offset b related to a correlation between the luma block and the current chroma block; and generating a predicted block of the current chroma block based on the prediction parameters, wherein the downsampled luma neighboring reference samples include at least one of a left downsampled luma neighboring reference sample or an upper downsampled luma neighboring reference sample, wherein at least one of one or more left luma neighboring reference sample lines or one or more upper luma neighboring reference sample lines are selected based on whether a boundary of the luma block overlaps with a boundary of a coding tree unit (CTU).
An image decoding method comprising: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current chroma block; selecting one or more luma reference sample lines for a current luma block from a plurality of luma reference sample lines neighboring the current luma block based on that the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block is an inter color component prediction mode, wherein the current luma block corresponds to the current chroma block; deriving luma reference samples and chroma reference samples used for intra prediction of the current chroma block from the selected one or more luma reference sample line and a chroma reference sample line neighboring the current chroma block; and generating a predicted block for the current chroma block based on the luma reference samples and the chroma reference samples according to the inter color component prediction mode, wherein in deriving the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block, whether to apply the inter color component prediction mode on the current chroma block is determined based on at least one of a size of the current chroma block, a shape of the current chroma block, and a coding parameter of the current chroma block, and wherein based on that an upper boundary of the current luma block overlaps with a boundary of a coding tree unit (CTU), one upper luma reference sample line is selected.
The conflict application discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of “downsampled luma neighboring reference samples.”
However, Liu from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses downsampled luma neighboring reference samples (e.g., see abstract, Figs. 1, 4, paragraphs 0037-0039; Fig. 4, paragraphs 0051-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the conflicting application to add the teachings of Liu as above, in order to provide an improved video codec to generate a prediction block for a chroma block, wherein the predicted chroma sample is based on a filtered reconstructed luma sample located in a corresponding reconstructed luma block, a plurality of downsampled filtered reconstructed luma samples located in positions neighboring the corresponding reconstructed luma block (see abstract: Liu).
Claims 9 and 10 are directed to an encoding method and a transmission method and are also rejected by corresponding claim 1 of the patent based on the same grounds as set forth in claim 1.
The remaining dependent claims 1-8 are also rejected based on dependency.
6. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11202063 (application No. 16/336,219)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants of each other. Furthermore, they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
7. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,509 B2 (application No. 17/523,025).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants of each other. Furthermore, they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
8. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent application No. 18/909,156).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants of each other. Furthermore, they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-10 will be allowable if Double Patenting Rejection is overcome by filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486