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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 21 April 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response to Office Action mailed 27 March 2026, filed 24 April 2026, with respect to Statutory Double Patenting Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Statutory Double Patenting Rejections of Claim 1-7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 8-20 renders all rejections of those claims moot.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12231681. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a system capable of two or more options with three or more for improvement of specific processes with those options.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 21, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 2021/0160514 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 28, Ma discloses an apparatus using a CRM to perform a method for performing video encoding/decoding with chroma from luma (CfL) intra prediction [Ma: ¶ [0018]: The method may be used in intra prediction for a current chroma block, and a used intra prediction mode is an LM mode. The method includes: parsing a bitstream to obtain first indication information, where the first indication information is used to indicate a filter type; performing a downsampling operation on a first luma block by using a filter corresponding to the filter type, to obtain a second luma block, where the first luma block is a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block, and a position of a luma sample of the second luma block is consistent with a position of a chroma sample of the current chroma block; obtaining a template chroma sample and a template luma sample, where the template chroma sample includes a plurality of neighboring chroma samples of the current chroma block, and the template luma sample is obtained by performing a downsampling operation on a plurality of neighboring luma samples of the first luma block; obtaining linear model coefficients based on the template chroma sample and the template luma sample; and obtaining a prediction value of the current chroma block based on the second luma block and the linear model coefficients; and ¶ [0132]: In a next-generation video coding standard (for example, H.266), the intra prediction modes for the chroma component of the image further includes… a cross component linear mode (CCLM) prediction mode. The CCLM prediction mode may also be briefly referred to as a linear model mode (LM mode for short). The LM mode is a chroma intra prediction method using a texture correlation between luma and chroma], the method being performed by at least one processor [Ma: ¶ [0045]] and comprising: receiving a current block from a coded video bitstream [Ma: FIG. 2]; based on the coded video bitstream, a variable indicating which of [Ma: ¶ [0198] In a specific embodiment of the present disclosure, six sample position types may be designed (such a design may be referred to as a design 1). As shown in FIG. 7, the six sample position types include: a type0, a type1, a type2, a type3, a type4, and a type5. Accordingly, there are six types of luma downsampling filters corresponding to the six sample position types: a filter 0, filter 1, filter 2, filter 3, filter 4, and a filter 5]; in response to the variable indicating that a first downsampling filter is used for the current block: determining a plurality of filter coefficients according to the first downsampling filter [Ma: ¶ [0020]: a neighboring top side and a neighboring left side that are used for calculation of the linear model coefficients may be referred to as templates. The template is a set of luma samples or a set of chroma samples used for calculation of the linear model coefficient]; and downsampling the current block based on the determined plurality of coefficients using a first number of sampling positions [Ma: ¶ [0011]: The method may include: determining a filter type based on a sample position type of the current chroma block, where the filter type is determined based on the sample position type of the current chroma block, and each sample position type of the current chroma block corresponds to a filter type]; in response to the variable indicating that a second downsampling filter is used for the current block: determining the plurality of filter coefficients according to the second downsampling filter [Ma: ¶ [0013]: Based on the first aspect, in a possible embodiment, six sample position types may be designed: a type0, a type1, a type2, a type3, a type4, and a type5. Accordingly, there are six types of luma downsampling filters corresponding to the six sample position types: a filter 0, a filter 1, a filter 2, a filter 3, a filter 4, and a filter 5. In other words, the sample position type of the current chroma block may be one of the six sample position types. By setting these filters, it is ensured that both the encoder side and the decoder side obtain the filter corresponding to the chroma sample position]; and downsampling the current block based on the determined plurality of coefficients using a second number of sampling positions, the second number of sampling positions are different from the first number of sampling positions [Ma: ¶ [0141]: In an embodiment of the present disclosure, during construction of a prediction block, the encoder 20 may be further configured to: in the LM mode, determine, based on the first indication information, the filter that is in the filter set and that corresponds to the filter type; downsample a first luma block by using the filter, to obtain a second luma block, where the first luma block is a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block; obtain a template chroma sample and a template luma sample, where the template chroma sample includes a plurality of neighboring chroma samples of the current chroma block, and the template luma sample is obtained by downsampling a plurality of neighboring luma samples of the first luma block; obtain linear model coefficients based on the template chroma sample and the template luma sample; and obtain a prediction value of the current chroma block based on the second luma block and the linear model coefficients]; and reconstructing the current block after downsampling the current block [Ma: ¶ [0086]: The communications interface 22 may be configured to receive the encoded picture data 21, and transmit the encoded picture data 21 to the destination device 14 or any other device (for example, a memory) through the link 13 for storage or direct reconstruction].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-7, 22-27, and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claims 1, 21, and 28 above, and further in view of Ogata (US 6332043 B1).
Regarding Claims 2, 22, and 29, Ma disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1, 21, and 28, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Ma may not explicitly disclose wherein the variable comprises a first flag indicating whether a number of taps corresponding to the plurality of filter coefficients is even or odd.
However, Ogata discloses wherein the variable comprises a first flag indicating whether a number of taps corresponding to the plurality of filter coefficients is even or odd [Ogata: Col. 9, ll. 18-19: flags indicating the number of taps].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Ma with the syntax of Ogata in order to provide reduced computational load to determine already known information.
Regarding Claims 3, 23, and 30, Ma in view of Ogata disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 2, 22, and 29, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ma in view of Ogata discloses wherein the variable indicates a predetermined number used to derive the number of the taps corresponding to the plurality of filter coefficients [Ogata: Col. 15, ll. 37-43].
Regarding Claims 4, 24, and 31, Ma in view of Ogata disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 3, 23, and 30, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore Ma in view of Ogata may not explicitly disclose wherein based on the number of the taps being odd, the number of the taps is determined to be equal to one of 2*N+1 or 2*N-1, where N indicates the predetermined number [Ogata: Col. 15, ll. 37-43].
Regarding Claims 5, 25, and 32, Ma in view of Ogata disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 3, 23, and 30, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ma in view of Ogata may not explicitly disclose wherein based on the number of the taps being even, the number of the taps is determined to be equal to one of 2*N, 2*(N+1), or 2*(N-1), where N indicates the predetermined number [Ogata: Col. 15, ll. 37-43].
Regarding Claims 6, 26, and 33, Ma disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1, 21, and 28, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Ma may not explicitly disclose wherein remaining filter coefficients of the plurality of filter coefficients are determined based on a value of at least one filter coefficient of the plurality of filter coefficients.
However, Ogata discloses wherein remaining filter coefficients of the plurality of filter coefficients are determined based on a value of at least one filter coefficient of the plurality of filter coefficients [Ogata: Col. 1, l. 61 - Col. 2, l. 6].
Regarding Claims 7 and 27, Ma in view of Ogata disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 6 and 26, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ma in view of Ogata may not explicitly disclose wherein the value of the at least one filter coefficient is represented by a flag [Ogata: Col. 9, ll. 35-42].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights