DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 obviousness-type double patenting rejection is based on a longstanding judicial interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 101 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. An 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 U.S.P.Q.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In reVongi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 U.S.P.Q. 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 U.S.P.Q. 761 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 U.S.P.Q. 619 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Thonngton, 418 F.2d 528, 163 U.S.P.Q. 644 (C.C.P.A. 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on obviousness-type 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 M.P.E.P. § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in M.P.E.P. § 2159. See M.P.E.P. §§ 706.02(1) (1) - 706.02(1) (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 C.F.R. § 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.
2. Claim 1 of the instant Application No. 19/051,810 is rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, of the issued patent US 12,256,102 (Application No. 18/381,790) and claim 1 of the issued patent US 11,831,918 (Application No. of 17/503,792) the (“conflicting patents”).
Although the “conflicting patents” claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patents are directed to the same invention, with the instant application being considered generic to the conflicting application claims, wherein the differently recited syntax in fact represents the same semantic of common claim scope as further expressed in the underlying rationale;
Both patented inventions identify an encoding/decoding method and apparatus by which, an image is received and a residual information is generated at the prediction loop as being derived from an intra-prediction mode applied to the current block, based on intra prediction mode information signaled in the bitstream to include a matrix based intra prediction (MIP) flag indicating that in case of MIP is whether being applied to the current block is coded into the bitstream and signaled by a flag to decoder, a secondary low frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index information related to the selection and application of a transform kernel for a LFNST transform set for the current block transform is conditionally applied.
However, the limitation at claim 1 of the instant application reciting; “wherein based on an intra sub-partitions (ISP) being not applied to the current block, a width and height of the current block being more than or equal to 4,”, represents an obvious prediction mode where a block sub-partition ISP, is not ordinarily applied to blocks smaller than 4x4 size, only to larger block sizes.
The instant application at claim 1 recites matter representing the same scope of reconstructing the image block under the same constraint as the conflicting patents, cited; (instant application)
“wherein the size of the matrix is 16x8 in response to the size of the current block being 8x8, wherein based on an intra sub-partitions (ISP) being not applied to the current block, a width and height of the current block being more than or equal to 4, the prediction mode information representing an intra mode and the MIP flag representing that the MIP is not applied, the image information includes low frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index information related to one of transform kernels in an LFNST transform set for the current block,.”, and the (conflicting patents) similarly reciting the restriction condition, where; …..(cont.),
and concluding by; “wherein the residual samples are generated based on the information on the transform coefficients by using the LFNST index information.”
(US 11,831,918): “wherein the size of the matrix is 16x8 in response to the size of the current block being 8x8 wherein based on an intra sub-partitions (ISP) being not applied to the current block, a width and height of the current block being more than 4, an intra mode being applied to the current block, and the MIP flag representing that the MIP is not applied, the image information includes low frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index information related to one of transform kernels in an LFNST transform set for the current block, “ and
(US 12,256,102): “wherein the size of the matrix is 16x8 in response to the size of the current block being 8x8, wherein based on an intra sub-partitions (ISP) being not applied to the current block, a width and height of the current block being more than or equal to 4, the prediction mode information representing an intra mode and the MIP flag representing that the MIP is not applied, the image information includes low frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index information related to one of transform kernels in an LFNST transform set for the current block,”, represent similar coding conditions.
It is also found that at the prediction loop of a coding device performs an inverse quantization/transform on the received residual and accordingly reconstructing the respective current video/image block as signaled by encoder on the constraint of a MIP not being allowed, thus allowing an LFNST secondary transform to be performed in this case by which it is concluded that similar subject matter is claimed.
The remaining independent claims 2 and 3 of the instant application are rejected under the same double patenting provisions determined, by reciting claim matter encompassed at the respective independent claims of the conflicting patent.
NOTE:
The Application would be placed in condition for allowance upon the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer, based on the precedent case rationale to allow issued at the above cited conflicting patents and based on the prior art search (at Conclusion) failing the bar of anticipation or obviousness.
Conclusion
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiang et al., (US 2020/0322623) in lieu of Prov. # 62,828,567
Deng et al., (US 2021/0297672)
Hsieh et al., (US 2018/0103252)
Gao et al., (WO 2020/211765 A1).
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487