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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 15-20 relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream a generated by a particular encoding method. Since the claims relate to a bitstream which is stored on a computer readable medium after all coding functions have been performed the bitstream no longer has any functional relationship with a processor or other machine, but instead relates to e.g. a video stored on a hard drive. The purpose of the stored bitstream is only to convey meaning to a human viewer of the coded bitstream and is thus non-functional descriptive material. Non-functional descriptive material used only to convey messages or meaning is given little patentable weight (See MPEP 2111.05). For the purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as relating only to a computer readable medium storing data.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,843,781. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are entirely encompassed by claims 1-17 of the ‘781 patent. The examiner notes that the organization of the claim limitations of the ‘781 patent differs from that of the instant application as different limitations of the dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims respectively, however as the limitations contained in the respective claims as a whole is co-extensive a rejection for Double Patenting is proper.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are entirely encompassed by claims 1-20 of the ‘994 patent. The examiner notes that the organization of the claim limitations of the ‘994 patent differs from that of the instant application as different limitations of the dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims respectively, however as the limitations contained in the respective claims as a whole is co-extensive a rejection for Double Patenting is proper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are entirely encompassed by claims 1-20 of the ‘531 patent. The examiner notes that the organization of the claim limitations of the ‘531 patent differs from that of the instant application as different limitations of the dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims respectively, however as the limitations contained in the respective claims as a whole is co-extensive a rejection for Double Patenting is proper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/927192. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are co-extensive in scope. Particularly claim 1 of the instant application is coextensive in scope with claims 2 of the ‘192 application. The examiner notes that the organization of the claim limitations of the ‘192 application differs from that of the instant application as different limitations of the dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims respectively, however as the limitations contained in the respective claims as a whole is co-extensive a rejection for Double Patenting is proper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al (2022/0038691).
Claims 15-20 are directed non-functional descriptive material and its claim elements are not given patentable weight as noted above. Thus the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Li which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Li par. 33 note storage media storing a coded bitstream. ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the rejections for Double Patenting above claims 1-14 are otherwise allowed.
Independent claims 1 and 8 require obtaining neighboring sample values of a current block and determining MIP input values of the current block using the neighboring values when MIP mode is used to predict a chroma component of the current block, determining a product of a shifting offset parameter and sum of MIP input values, determining a first offset to be a difference between a first constant value and the product, determining an MIP weighting matrix of a current block, calculating a weighted sum of the MIP weighting matrix and the MIP input sample, right shifting the sum based on a shifting parameter number, determining MIP prediction values based on the right shifted value and an index value of a temporal reference, filtering the MIP prediction value, determining prediction residual values of the color components of a current block according to the determined intra prediction, performing and LFNST, and encoding an LFSNT parameter into a bitstream.
The closest prior arts are Kim and VTM7. Kim discloses coding using MIP mode for the components of a current block and selectively performing a non-separable transform on all frequency coefficients of a block based on the block size. VTM7 discloses further details regarding MIP processes including the application of MIP to the chroma component of a block. However, neither Kim nor VTM 7 require the particular MIP process including determining shifting offset parameters and determining a product of shifting offset parameters and MIP input sample values as required by independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend from claims 1 and 8 respectively and are allowed for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210281838 A1 LEE; Jin Ho et al.
US 20130003856 A1 SAXENA; Ankur et al.
“Test Model 5 of Versatile Video Coding (VTM 5)”
“Test Model 6 of Versatile Video Coding (VTM 6)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2423