DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges preliminary amendments to the claims dated 04/01/2026 and enters for consideration. No new claims have been added nor any claims cancelled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The writings in Figure 5 are not legible and needs to be reproduced clearly. The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a phrase that can be implied (“Embodiments of the present disclosure provides systems and methods for processing video content”).
Appropriate correction is required. Also see MPEP 608.01(b), Paragraph C – “Language and Format”.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,863 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,244,863 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 1 between the instant application and the patent.
19040676 (Instant Application)
12,244,863 B2 (Patent)
Claim 1
Claim 1
1
A computer-implemented video processing method, comprising:
A computer-implemented video processing method, comprising:
2
decoding or encoding a bitstream comprising coded information representing a plurality of luma samples; and
reconstructing a chroma block based on a plurality of luma samples associated with the chroma block,
3
reconstructing a chroma block,
4
wherein reconstructing the chroma block comprises:
wherein reconstructing the chroma block comprises:
5
determining whether a transform unit has non-zero chroma residuals; and
determining whether the chroma block has non-zero chroma residuals; and
6
in response to a determination that the transform unit has no non-zero chroma residuals, bypassing a process of averaging the plurality of luma samples associated with the chroma block, wherein the process of averaging is used for scaling chroma residuals of the transform unit.
in response to a determination that the chroma block has no non-zero chroma residuals, bypassing a process of averaging the plurality of luma samples, wherein the process of averaging is used for reconstructing the chroma block.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. Even though, the apparent difference of a “transform unit” and a “chroma block” between the instant application and the patent respectively is present, however a closer inspection of the limitation “determining whether a transform unit has non-zero chroma residuals” in the instant application reveals that “transform unit” and “chroma block” are synonymous here. Therefore, the instant application claim 1 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 10 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Patent 12,244,863 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 10 between the instant application and the patent.
19040676 (Instant Application)
12,244,863 B2 (Patent)
Claim 10
Claim 10
1
An apparatus, comprising: one or more memories storing a set of instructions; and
An apparatus, comprising: one or more memories storing a set of instructions; and
2
one or more processors configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
one or more processors configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
3
decoding or encoding a bitstream comprising coded information representing a plurality of luma samples; and
4
reconstructing a chroma block,
reconstructing a chroma block based on a plurality of luma samples associated with the chroma block,
5
wherein in reconstructing the chroma block, the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to further perform:
wherein in reconstructing the chroma block, the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to further perform:
6
determining whether a transform unit has non-zero chroma residuals; and
determining whether the chroma block has non-zero chroma residuals; and
7
in response to a determination that the transform unit has no non-zero chroma residuals, bypassing a process of averaging the plurality of luma samples associated with the chroma block, wherein the process of averaging is used for scaling chroma residuals of the transform unit.
in response to a determination that the chroma block has no non-zero chroma residuals, bypassing a process of averaging the plurality of luma samples, wherein the process of averaging is used for reconstructing the chroma block.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. Even though, the apparent difference of a “transform unit” and a “chroma block” between the instant application and the patent respectively is present, however a closer inspection of the limitation “determining whether a transform unit has non-zero chroma residuals” in the instant application reveals that “transform unit” and “chroma block” are synonymous here. Therefore, the instant application claim 10 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 10.
Claim 16 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent 12,244,863 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 16 between the instant application and the patent.
19040676 (Instant Application)
12,244,863 B2 (Patent)
Claim 16
Claim 16
1
A method of storing a bitstream of a video, the method comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream of a video for processing according to a method comprising:
2
reconstructing a chroma block;
reconstructing a chroma block based on a plurality of luma samples associated with the chroma block,
3
generating a bitstream comprising coded information for reconstructing the chroma block; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer readable medium,
4
wherein reconstructing the chroma block comprises:
wherein reconstructing the chroma block comprises:
5
determining whether a transform unit has non-zero chroma residuals; and
determining whether the chroma block has non-zero chroma residuals; and
6
in response to a determination that the chroma block has no non-zero chroma residuals, bypassing a process of averaging the plurality of luma samples associated with the chroma block, wherein the process of averaging is used for scaling chroma residuals of the transform unit.
in response to a determination that the chroma block has no non-zero chroma residuals, bypassing a process of averaging the plurality of luma samples, wherein the process of averaging is used for reconstructing the chroma block.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. Even though, the apparent difference of a “transform unit” and a “chroma block” between the instant application and the patent respectively is present, however a closer inspection of the limitation “determining whether a transform unit has non-zero chroma residuals” in the instant application reveals that “transform unit” and “chroma block” are synonymous here. Therefore, the instant application claim 16 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 16.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 1-20 of Patent 12,244,863 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For the same reasons above, claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,581 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For the same reasons above, claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,516,512 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. "DECODED PICTURE BUFFER MANAGEMENT AND DYNAMIC RANGE ADJUSTMENT" - Ramasubramonian et al., US PGPub 2019/0327477 A1.
2. "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CODING VIDEO DATA USING ADAPTIVE COMPONENT SCALING" - Zhao et al., US PGPub 2019/0289306 A1.
3. "QUANTIZATION PARAMETER CONTROL FOR VIDEO CODING WITH JOINED PIXEL/TRANSFORM BASED QUANTIZATION" - Rusanovskyy et al., US PGPub 2019/0191172 A1.
4. "LUMA-DRIVEN CHROMA SCALING FOR HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE AND WIDE COLOR GAMUT CONTENTS" - Lee et al., US PGPub 2017/0105014 A1.
5. "ADAPTIVE INTER-COLOR COMPONENT RESIDUAL PREDICTION" - Kim et al., US PGPub 2015/0117519 A1.
6. "INTER-COLOR COMPONENT RESIDUAL PREDICTION" - Pu et al., US PGPub 2015/0016512 A1.
7. "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING COLOR SHARPNESS IN VIDEO AND IMAGES" - Hvidsten, US PGPub 2009/0245387 A1.
8. "CROSS-COMPONENT PREDICTION FOR VIDEO CODING" - Ramasubramonian et al., US PGPub 2020/0154115 A1.
9. "LINEAR MODEL PREDICTION MODE WITH SAMPLE ACCESSING FOR VIDEO CODING" - Zhang et al., US PGPub 2018/0176594 A1.
10. "Enhanced Cross-Component Linear Model for Chroma Intra-Prediction in Video Coding" - Zhang et al., IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 27, NO. 8, AUGUST 2018.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. 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.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights