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 .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: omission of important information.
Paragraph 0001 of the specification indicates related applications. One of these related applications has issued into U.S. Patent. The specification should be updated to reflect this information. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/793,081 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of "wherein the SPS further includes an SPS virtual boundaries present flag based on a value of the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag” and “wherein based on that the value of the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag is 1…the picture header information includes a picture header virtual boundaries present flag."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
5. Claims 1-3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,812. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of "wherein the SPS further includes an SPS virtual boundaries present flag based on a value of the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag” and “wherein based on that the value of the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag is 1…the picture header information includes a picture header virtual boundaries present flag."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-3 would be allowable if they overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this office action.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
8. With regards to claim 1, DESHPANDE et al. (US 2025/0350768) discloses a decoding apparatus for an image decoding (FIG. 6), the decoding apparatus comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory (paragraph 0709), the at least one processor configured to:
obtain image information including residual information through a bitstream (FIG. 6; paragraph 0706, entropy decoding unit 602 receives an entropy encoded bitstream. Entropy decoding unit 602 may be configured to decode syntax elements and quantized coefficients from the bitstream according to a process reciprocal to an entropy encoding process, wherein the bitstream contains residual information as shown in FIG. 5; see also paragraph 0003);
generate reconstructed samples of a current picture, based on the residual information (FIG. 6, output of adder 612; paragraph 0707); and
generate modified reconstructed samples, based on an in-loop filtering process for the reconstructed samples (FIG. 6, output of Post Filter Unit 614; paragraph 0708, Post filter unit 614 may be configured to perform filtering on reconstructed video data),
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) and picture header information (SPS and PH are parts of the parameter sets as taught in paragraph 0059; see also last sentence of paragraph 0019),
wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag (paragraph 0105, table 3, which illustrates the sequence parameter set syntax structure, includes sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag),
wherein whether the in-loop filtering process is performed across virtual boundaries is determined, based on the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag (paragraph 0251, sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag equal to 1 specifics that the in-loop filtering operations are disabled across the virtual boundaries in pictures referring to the SPS. sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag equal to 0 specifies that no such disabling of in-loop filtering operations is applied in pictures referring to the SPS),
wherein based on that the value of the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag is 1…the picture header information includes a picture header virtual boundaries present flag (paragraph 0354, table 5, which illustrates the syntax of the picture header syntax structure, includes ph_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag if (!sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag), which means if !sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag is 0, also means that the in-loop filtering operations are enabled across the virtual boundaries.
9. In addition, with regards to claim 1, Bang et al. (US 2022/0312009) discloses a decoding apparatus for an image decoding (FIG. 2), the decoding apparatus comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory (paragraph 0029), the at least one processor configured to:
obtain image information including residual information through a bitstream (paragraphs 0160 and 0224 discloses a bitstream may denote a stream of bits including encoded image information… the encoding apparatus 100 may encode a residual block for the target block using a residual between the target block and the prediction block);
generate reconstructed samples of a current picture, based on the residual information (paragraph 0271 discloses when the reconstructed residual block and the prediction block are acquired, the decoding apparatus 200 may generate a reconstructed block); and
generate modified reconstructed samples, based on an in-loop filtering process for the reconstructed samples (paragraph 0257, reconstructed block may be subjected to filtering through the filter unit 180 i.e., modified reconstructed samples… the filter unit 180 may also be referred to as an “in-loop filter”),
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) and picture header information (paragraphs 0018 and 0149-0151 discloses parameter set may correspond to header information… parameter set may include at least one of a video parameter set (VPS), a sequence parameter set (SPS); filtering information may be applied to a picture that refers to the SPS),
wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag (paragraphs 0013 and 0016-0017),
10. The prior art, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose the limitation “…wherein the SPS further includes an SPS virtual boundaries present flag based on a value of the SPS virtual boundaries enabled flag, wherein whether information on positions of the virtual boundaries and information on a number of the virtual boundaries are included in the SPS is determined based on a value of the SPS virtual boundaries present flag, wherein based on that…the value of the SPS virtual boundaries present flag is 0, the picture header information includes a picture header virtual boundaries present flag, and wherein whether information on positions of the virtual boundaries and information on a number of the virtual boundaries are included in the picture header information is determined based on a value of the picture header virtual boundaries present flag” of claim 1.
Thus, the prior art does not disclose the aforementioned limitation used in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 1.
With regards to claims 2-3, same reasoning applied for claim 1 is applicable to claims 2-3.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US20200296368, US20200396481, US20170099501, US20200077092, US20200228843, US20210120272, US20220014731, US20220217396, US20220217407, US20220256148, US11089335, “VVC (Draft 7) JVET-P2001-vE”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482