DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on January 21, 2025. Claims 1-3 are pending and are 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 .
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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,299 (“the ‘299 patent”) in view of the level of skill in the art. Claims 1-3 of the ‘299 patent and claims 1-3 of the present application are largely the same. The present application adds only that the coding process includes the signaling of residual information in a bitstream, of generating transform coefficients therefrom, and ultimately residual samples from the transform coefficients to be used for reconstruction of the current block. Such elements were known to be part of the prediction coding process at the time of the invention (see, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 11,134,257 at Figs. 3, 5, 6, items 351, 355, 524, 673, 674, 7:45:8-13, 14:10-24, 14:57-32). Accordingly, to such a person, it would have been obvious that the claims of the ‘299 patent, which use such prediction coding, would also include the derivation of residual information, transform coefficients, and residual samples for use in reconstruction. Doing so in the system of the claims 1-3 of the ‘299 patent would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. Accordingly, in view of the level of skill in the art, the conflicting claims are not patentably unique.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claims 1-3 of the ‘299 patent:
Instant Application 19/032,830
U.S. Patent No. 12,238,299
1. (Original) An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: obtaining residual information from a bitstream;
1. Limitation 2: obtaining flag information related to whether matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) is used for a current block, from the bitstream;
1. Limitation 1: obtaining… flag information related to whether matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) is used for a current block, from a bitstream;
1. Limitation 3: obtaining MIP mode information based on a value of the flag information being equal to 1, wherein the value of the flag information equal to 1 is related to representing that the MIP is used for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: obtaining MIP mode information based on a value of the flag information being equal to 1, wherein the value of the flag information equal to 1 is related to representing that the MIP is used for the current block;
1. Limitation 4: deriving an MIP matrix based on the MIP mode information and a size of the current block;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an MIP matrix based on the MIP mode information and a size of the current block;
1. Limitation 5: generating intra prediction samples for the current block based on the MIP matrix;
1. Limitation 4: generating intra prediction samples for the current block based on the MIP matrix;
1. Limitation 6: deriving transform coefficients based on the residual information;
1. Limitation 7: generating residual samples based on the transform coefficients; and
1. Limitation 8: generating reconstructed samples for the current block based on the intra prediction samples and the residual samples,
1. Limitation 5: generating reconstructed samples for the current block based on the intra prediction samples,
1. Limitation 9: wherein the MIP mode information is index information related to the MIP matrix applied to the current block,
1. Limitation 6: wherein the MIP mode information is index information related to the MIP matrix applied to the current block,
1. Limitation 10: wherein a syntax element bin string for the MIP mode information is binarized by a truncated binary (TB) binarization method,
1. Limitation 7: wherein a syntax element bin string for the MIP mode information is binarized by a truncated binary (TB) binarization method,
1. Limitation 11: wherein a maximum length of the syntax element bin string is set to different three values based on whether i) a width and height of the current block are 4, ii) the width and height of the current block are 8 or less, or iii) the width and height of the current block are greater than 8, and
1. Limitation 8: wherein a maximum length of the syntax element bin string is set to different three values based on whether i) a width and height of the current block are 4, ii) the width and height of the current block are 8 or less, or iii) the width and height of the current block are greater than 8, and
1. Limitation 12: wherein the maximum length has a largest value based on the width and height of the current block being 4.
1. Limitation 9: wherein the maximum length has a largest value based on the width and height of the current block being 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481