CTNF 19/050,898 CTNF 90233 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 This office action is in response to a continuation application filed in which claims 1-3 of the instant application are pending and ready for examination. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,115,671 . 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 application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,115,671, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-2 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. More specifically, the subject matter in claims 2 and 5 of U.S. Patent Number 11,115,671 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claim 2 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the aforementioned claim 2 of the instant application. Additionally, the subject matter in claims 2 and 5 of U.S. Patent Number 11,115,671 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claim 1 of the instant application except the encoding steps of the aforementioned claim 1 of the instant application. However, any person of ordinary skill in the art would see that encoding and decoding techniques and/or apparatuses are obvious variants of and dependent upon each other in order to provide a seamless video coding and viewing experience. Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,318 . 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 application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,318, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-2 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. More specifically, the subject matter in claim 2 of U.S. Patent Number 11,503,318 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claim 2 of the instant application except the feature of deriving and using a second index indicating a context model. Additionally, the subject matter in claim 2 of U.S. Patent Number 11,503,318 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claim 1 of the instant application except the feature of deriving and using a second index indicating a context model as well as all the encoding steps of the aforementioned claim 1 of the instant application. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art that operations pertaining to deriving and using an index indicating a context model are standard and well-known techniques that allow for increased flexibility in obtaining desired video coding efficiency goals. Furthermore, any person of ordinary skill in the art would see that encoding and decoding techniques and/or apparatuses are obvious variants of and dependent upon each other in order to provide a seamless video coding and viewing experience. Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,038 . 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 application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,038, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-2 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. More specifically, the subject matter in independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent Number 12,262,038 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claim 1 of the instant application except the feature of setting a value of a first index to 0. Additionally, the subject matter in independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent Number 12,262,038 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claim 2 of the instant application except the feature of setting a value of a first index to 0 as well as all the decoding steps of the aforementioned claim 2 of the instant application. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art that operations pertaining to setting a value of an index to arbitrary values are standard and well-known techniques that allow for increased flexibility in obtaining desired video coding efficiency goals. Furthermore, any person of ordinary skill in the art would see that encoding and decoding techniques and/or apparatuses are obvious variants of and dependent upon each other in order to provide a seamless video coding and viewing experience. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misra (US 2022/0248007) . As to claim 3, Misra teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream containing information according to which a decoder performs a decoding process, the information including a first flag indicating whether a CCALF (cross component adaptive loop filtering) process is enabled for a first block located adjacent to a left side of a current block, and a second flag indicating whether the CCALF process is enabled for a second block located adjacent to an upper side of the current block (see [0060], [0140], [0404]-[0406], and [0445]-[0449]), wherein in the decoding process: the first flag indicating whether the CCALF process is enabled for the first block is parsed from the bitstream; the second flag indicating whether the CCALF process is enabled for the second block is parsed from the bitstream; a value of a first index is set to 0, the first index being associated with a color component of the current block; a second index is derived, the second index indicating a context model, using an equation that is a function of the first flag, the second flag, and the first index, the equation being used to derive a third index indicating another context model for an ALF (adaptive loop filtering) control flag; entropy decoding of a third flag is performed, the third flag indicating whether the CCALF process is enabled for the current block, using the context model indicated by the second index, and the CCALF process is performed on the current block in response to the third flag indicating the CCALF process is enabled for the current block (this portion of the claim is not given patentable weight). Allowable Subject Matter The closest prior art made of record in regards to applicant’s claimed invention is as follows: Hu et al. (US 2021/0067793) discloses an example device for decoding video data that includes a memory configured to store video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry and configured to: determine a number of bits, k, used to represent a decimal value for a filter coefficient of a cross-component adaptive loop filter; determine that a dynamic range of the filter coefficient comprises (-(1<<(k-c))+1, (1<<(k-c))-1) for a value of c, c representing an offset value to the value of k, and `<<` representing a bitwise left shift operator; decode a block of the video data; and performing cross-component adaptive loop filtering of the decoded block using the filter coefficient, the filter coefficient being within the dynamic range (abstract). Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006790) discloses a method for processing a video that includes performing a determination, by a processor, that a first video block is partitioned to include a first prediction portion that is non-rectangular and non-square; adding a first motion vector (MV) prediction candidate associated with the first prediction portion to a motion candidate list associated with the first video block, wherein the first MV prediction candidate is derived from a sub-block MV prediction candidate; and performing further processing of the first video block using the motion candidate list (abstract). Misra et al. (US 2022/0248007) discloses a method of filtering reconstructed video data. The method comprises: inputting reconstructed luma component sample values; deriving a filtered sample value by using cross component filter coefficients and the reconstructed luma component sample values prior to an adaptive loop filtering process; deriving a refinement value for chroma components by using the filtered sample value; and deriving a refined chroma sample value by using a sum of a sample value of chroma components and the refinement value for chroma components (abstract). Chen et al. (US 2018/0063527) discloses a video coding device that generates first and second components of a current picture. Additionally, the video coding device determines a first parameter and a second parameter. The first and second parameters are each based on a value of a current sample in the first component. The video coding device applies a cross-component filter to the current sample, thereby determining a filtered value of the current sample based on the first parameter, the second parameter, and one or more cross-component samples. Each of the one or more cross-component samples is in the second component (abstract). The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1 and 2, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm. 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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. /ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/050,898 Page 2 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/050,898 Page 3 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/050,898 Page 4 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/050,898 Page 5 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/050,898 Page 6 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/050,898 Page 7 Art Unit: 2482
Prosecution Insights