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 .
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.
Claim1,3,5, 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1, 4-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations in the instant application are covered by the scope of the claims in he parented application with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below.
As per claim 1, Andersson teaches a method for deblocking a block boundary between a first block (B1) and a second block (B2), the method comprising: determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks (claim 1, “.. determining that sub-block deblocking is activated comprises determining that B2 has prediction sub-blocks”); as a result of determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks, deblocking a block boundary between the B1 block and the B2 block with the restriction that not more than 5 samples are modified on the B2 side of the block boundary as a result of the deblocking (claim 1, “deblocking a block boundary between a first block (B1) and a second block (B2) with the restriction that not more than 5 samples are modified on the B2 side of the block boundary as a result of the deblocking”.. and “the deblocking steps are performed as a result of determining that sub-block deblocking is activated, and determining that sub-block deblocking is activated comprises determining that block B2 has prediction sub-blocks”); and deblocking a sub-block boundary with the B2 block such that not more than 2 samples on the side of the sub-block boundary within the B2 block that is closest to the block boundary between the B1 and the B2 block are modified by the deblocking (claim 1, “; and deblocking a sub-block boundary within the B2 block such that not more than 2 samples on the side of the sub-block boundary within the B2 block that is closest to the block boundary between B1 and B2 are modified by the deblocking”).
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
As per claim 5, Andersson teachers wherein deblocking the sub-block boundary is performed as a result of determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks (claim 1).
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
As per claim 13, Andersson teaches wherein the sub-block boundary is separated from the block boundary at least 8 samples (claim 1, “wherein the sub-block boundary is separated from the block boundary by 8 samples”).
As per claim 14, Andersson teaches wherein deblocking the sub-block boundary is performed prior to deblocking the block boundary as a result of determining that sub-block deblocking is activated (claim 1, “prior to performing both of the deblocking steps, determining that sub-block deblocking is activated”).
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,845 B2.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No,. 11,381,485 B2.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,485 B2.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,485 B2.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,485 B2.
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, 3-5, 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-5, 7-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2. That is, claims 1, 3-5, 7-20 are anticipated by claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
As per claim 1, Andersson teaches a method for deblocking a block boundary between a first block (B1) and a second block (B2), the method comprising: determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks (claim 1, “determining that sub-block deblocking is activated comprises determining that block B2 has prediction sub-blocks”); as a result of determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks, deblocking a block boundary between the B1 block and the B2 block with the restriction that not more than 5 samples are modified on the B2 side of the block boundary as a result of the deblocking (claim 1,” deblocking a block boundary between a first block (B1) and a second block (B2) with the restriction that not more than 5 samples are modified on the B2 side of the block boundary as a result of the deblocking” and “deblocking the block boundary is performed as a result of determining that sub-block deblocking is activated, and determining that sub-block deblocking is activated comprises determining that block B2 has prediction sub-blocks”); and deblocking a sub-block boundary within the B2 block such that not more than 2 samples on the side of the sub-block boundary within the B2 block that is closest to the block boundary between the B1 block and the B2 block are modified by the deblocking (claim 1, “deblocking a sub-block boundary within the B2 block such that not more than 2 samples on the side of the sub-block boundary within the B2 block that is closest to the block boundary between B1 and B2 are modified by the deblocking”).
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,413 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotra et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2020/0382775 A1) and in view of Tsai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0344934 A1).
As per claim 1, Kotra teaches a metho for deblocking a block boundary between a first block (B1) and a second block (B2), the method comprising: determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks ([0362-0363]; if current block Q uses Sub-pu tools like Affine or ATMVP, then embodiments of the present invention use the asymmetric version of the long tap filter, i.e., uses an asymmetric filter as shown in table 1 to deblock the CU boundary between P and Q” and “… . Sub-pu tools means a given coding unit will further use smaller prediction units (sub-pus) and motion compensation is done separately for each of the sub-pus” and at least fig. 4); as a result of determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks, deblocking a block boundary between the B1 block and the B2 block with the restriction that not more than 5 samples are modified on the B2 side of the block boundary as a result of the deblocking ([0362-0363]; “… Therefore for the coding unit Q which uses Sub-pu tools, a maximum of three samples are modified”). Although Kotra discloses deblocking a sub-block boundary within the B2 block such that samples on the side of sub-block boundary within the B2 block that is closest to the block boundary between the B1 and the B2 block are modified by the deblocking (figs. 4-5), Kotra does not explicitly disclose deblocking a sub-block boundary within the B2 block such that not more than 2 samples between the B1 and B2 block are modified by the deblocking.
However, Tsai teaches deblocking a sub-block boundary within the B2 block such that not more than 2 samples between the B1 and B2 block are modified by the deblocking (fig. 8 and [0093-0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tsai with Kotra for the benefit of providing techniques to improve video quality by using de-blocking filtering in video/image coding systems utilising sub-block processing, [0002].
As per claim 2, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the deblocking the block boundary between the B1 block and the B2 block and deblocking the sub-block boundary within the B2 block are performed independently (fig. 19).
As per claim 3, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the block boundary is a vertical block boundary and the sub-block boundary is a vertical sub-block boundary, or the block boundary is a horizontal block boundary and the sub-block boundary is a horizontal sub-block boundary ([0415] and figs. 4-5, and 15).
As per claim 4, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the sub-block boundary is separated from the block boundary by 8 samples (figs. 4, 15-16).
As per claim 5, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein deblocking the sub-block boundary is performed as a result of determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks (fig. 7, fig. 12 el. 1203 and [0362-0363]).
As per claim 6, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks comprises determining that the B2 block has at least two prediction sub-blocks ([0014], [0140], [0354]).
As per claim 7, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the sub-block boundary in the B2 block is a prediction sub-block boundary ([0362] and figs. 4-5).
As per claim 8, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the block boundary between the B1 block and the B2 block is a transform boundary or a prediction boundary ([0010], TU boundary).
As per claim 9, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein deblocking the block boundary comprises modifying a first set of two or more consecutive samples on the B2 side of the block boundary positioned orthogonal to the block boundary (figs. 4-5; [0362-0363], [0365], [0417]), the first set of samples comprises a first sample that is directly adjacent to the block boundary (fig. 4, fig. 5 el. [0417]); and the deblocking is performed with the restriction that the first set of one or more consecutive samples contains not more than the 5 samples (fig. 5, note the first 5 samples in block 502).
As per claim 10, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 9. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the first set of samples consists of the first sample, a second sample, a third sample, a fourth sample, and a fifth sample (fig. 5; note the first 5 samples in coding unit Q), and the second sample is directly adjacent to the first sample, the third sample is directly adjacent the second sample, the fourth sample is directly adjacent the third sample, the fifth sample is directly adjacent to the fourth sample (fig. 5).
As per claim 11, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above see claim 9. In addition, Kotra teaches deblocking the sub-block boundary comprises modifying a second set of one or more consecutive samples positioned orthogonal to the sub-block boundary ([0414] and fig. 4-5, fig, 16, 19), the second set of samples comprises a first sample that is directly adjacent to the sub-block boundary (fig. 4-5). Kotra does not explicitly disclose the deblocking of the sub-block boundary is performed with the restriction that the second set of one or more consecutive samples contain not more than 2 samples.
However, Tsai teaches the deblocking of the sub-block boundary is performed with the restriction that the second set of one or more consecutive samples contain not more than 2 samples (fig. 8 and [0093-0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tsai with Kotra for the benefit of providing techniques to improve video quality by using de-blocking filtering in video/image coding systems utilising sub-block processing, [0002].
As per claim 12, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 11. In addition, Kotra discloses the second set of samples consists of the first sample that is directly adjacent to the sub-block boundary and a second sample directly adjacent to the second sample (figs. 4-5; note samples q0,0-q7,0 which are orthogonal to the CU boundary and adjacent to the sub-PU boundary).
As per claim 13, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the sub-block boundary is separated from the block boundary by at least 8 samples (figs. 4, 15-16).
As per claim 14, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein deblocking the sub-block boundary is performed prior to deblocking the block boundary as a result of determining that the sub-block deblocking is activated ([0061-0065], “deblocking determination
As per claim 15, which is the corresponding computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program with the limitations of claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 16, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method for deblocking as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Kotra discloses processing circuitry (fig.3, fig. 13, fig. 14,[0239-0241], [0530]); and a memory (fig. 3, fig. 13, fig. 14 and [0530-0531], wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processing circuitry ([0239-0241]).
As per claim 17, Kotra (modified by Tsai ) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 16. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the apparatus is an encoding apparatus (fig. 1).
As per claim 18, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 16. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the apparatus is a decoding apparatus (fig. 2).
As per claim 19, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 16. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein deblocking the sub-block boundary is performed as a result of determining that the B2 block has prediction sub-blocks (fig. 12 el. 1203).
As per claim 20, Kotra (modified by Tsai) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 16. In addition, Kotra teaches wherein the sub-block boundary in block B2 is a prediction sub-block boundary ([0135], [0140], [0362] and fig. 4-5), and the block boundary between block B1 and block B2 is a transform boundary or a prediction boundary ([0010], [0014-0015], [0351], [0388], Tu boundary).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kwon et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 7539248-B2); “Adaptive De-Blocking Filtering Apparatus and Method for MPEP Video Decoder”
Sadafale et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20130034169-A1), “Block-Based Parallel Deblocking Filter in Video Coding”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 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 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486