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
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 19/033286 is responsive to communications filed on January 21st, 2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending are presented for examination.
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 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).
Claims 1, 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 copending Application No 19/009877, 19/245178, 19/222782, 19/177468. 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. Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Conflicting Co-pending Application 19/009877
Instant Application-19033286-
1.A method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the target block, that a combination of an intra block copy (IBC) and an intra prediction (CIBCIP) mode is applied to the target block; obtaining an TBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal based on the CTBCTP mode; deriving a prediction or a reconstruction of the target block by combining the TBC predicted signal and the intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction or the reconstruction of the target block.
Claim 1
1.A method of video processing, comprising: applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claims 18-20
Conflicting Co-pending Application 19/245178
Instant Application-19033286-
1.A method of video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether to apply a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit based on at least one of: coding information, whether an indication of CIBCIP mode is indicated, or one or more syntax elements; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claim 1
1.A method of video processing, comprising: applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claims 18-20
Conflicting Co-pending Application 19/222782
Instant Application-19033286-
1. A method of video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether to apply a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit; in accordance with a determination that a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) is applied to the video unit, obtaining an IBC predicted signal of the video unit; obtaining an intra predicted signal of the video unit; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining the IBC predicted signal and the intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claim 1
1.A method of video processing, comprising: applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claims 18-20
Conflicting Co-pending Application 19/177468
Instant Application-19033286-
1. A method of video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether to apply a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit; in accordance with a determination that a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) is applied to the video unit, obtaining an IBC predicted signal of the video unit; obtaining an intra predicted signal of the video unit; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining the IBC predicted signal and the intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claim 1
1.A method of video processing, comprising: applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit; deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit.
Claims 18-20
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 18-20 are generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of co-pending applications. That is, claims 1, 18-20 is/are anticipated by claim 1 of co-pending applications.
Claims 1, 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 respectively of copending Applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of video processing, comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit [i.e. selects a prediction mode from the IBC prediction mode, an intra prediction mode and an inter prediction mode based on a combination of the prediction mode flag and the IBC prediction mode flag. Before intra block copy is used, a coding bock may be coded in intra mode or inter mode; paragraph. 0022, 0113];
deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal [i.e. prediction mode of a current block is derived based on a combination of values of the prediction mode flag and the IBC prediction mode flag; paragraph. 0157]; and
performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit [i.e. paragraph. 0018, 0089].
Regarding claim 3, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the intra predicted signal is generated by at least one of: an angular intra- prediction mode, a direct currency (DC) mode, a planar mode, a cross-component prediction (CCLM) mode, a multi- model CCLM mode, a left CCLM mode, or an above CCLM mode [i.e. Fig. 1], and/or
wherein an intra prediction mode of the intra predicted signal is coded using one of the followings to indicate the intra prediction mode: a most probable mode (MPM), a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD), or a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD).
Regarding claim 4, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a set of intra prediction modes is allowed to be used in the CIBCIP [i.e. the current block can be any of the intra prediction mode; paragraph. 0135], and/or wherein an IBC merge mode is used in the CIBCIP, and/or wherein an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode is used in the CIBCIP.
Regarding claim 17, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Xu et al. (US 20200252605 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream [i.e. decodes from a coded video bitstream; paragraph. 0019].
Regarding claims 18-20, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joshi et al. (US 20160150234 A1).
Claim 20 directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM.
Therefore, the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).
Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Joshi et al. (US 20160150234 A1) which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0156] storing the encoded bitstream on a storage medium).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
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 (too 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.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487