DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 21, 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12256089 B2, in view of US 20120106649 A1 Wang; Xianglin et al. (hereafter Wang). Claims 21 and 33 contain similar subject matter as that of claims 1 and 14 in the above mentioned patent, however, the patent fails to disclose receiving, as part of a bitstream, compressed data, the compressed data including a value of a coded block flag ("CBF") for a root transform unit ("TU") of a residual quadtree for a given coding unit ("CU") of video content, the value of the CBF for the root TU being signaled for the given CU; and transmitting the compressed data, wherein the compressed data is usable to cause a computer-implemented video decoder, when processing the compressed data, to perform operations to reconstruct the video content, the operations including, for the given CU: determining the value of the CBF for the root TU of the residual quadtree for the given CU, the value of the CBF for the root TU indicating the root TU includes residual information; determining, based on the value of the CBF for the root TU, that the root TU includes residual information. Wang teaches in video decoding teaches receiving, as part of a bitstream, compressed data, the compressed data including a value of a coded block flag ("CBF") for a root transform unit ("TU") of a residual quadtree for a given coding unit ("CU") of video content (Figs.3,5B, [210], [221], RQT as residual quadtree in bitstream includes CBF for root TU of a CU), the value of the CBF for the root TU being signaled for the given CU ([210]); and transmitting the compressed data, wherein the compressed data is usable to cause a computer-implemented video decoder, when processing the compressed data, to perform operations to reconstruct the video content, the operations including, for the given CU (Figs.1,3, [45], [158]): determining the value of the CBF for the root TU of the residual quadtree for the given CU, the value of the CBF for the root TU indicating the root TU includes residual information ([70], [210]); determining, based on the value of the CBF for the root TU, that the root TU includes residual information ([05], [29], [59], syntax CBF for largest TU indicates whether the TU includes no-zero coefficient that is residual or presented as coded). In order to improve compression efficiency.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12256089 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims anticipate the subject matter in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20120106649 A1 Wang; Xianglin et al. (hereafter Wang), and further in view of US 61374348 (Provisional Application of US 20130148739 A1) Lee; Tammy et al. (hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses In a computer system (Fig.1), a method comprising: receiving, as part of a bitstream, compressed data, the compressed data including a value of a coded block flag ("CBF") for a root transform unit ("TU") of a residual quadtree for a given coding unit ("CU") of video content (Figs.3,5B, [210], [221], RQT as residual quadtree in bitstream includes CBF for root TU of a CU), the value of the CBF for the root TU being signaled for the given CU ([210]); and transmitting the compressed data, wherein the compressed data is usable to cause a computer-implemented video decoder, when processing the compressed data, to perform operations to reconstruct the video content, the operations including, for the given CU (Figs.1,3, [45], [158]): determining the value of the CBF for the root TU of the residual quadtree for the given CU, the value of the CBF for the root TU indicating the root TU includes residual information ([70], [210]); determining, based on the value of the CBF for the root TU, that the root TU includes residual information ([05], [29], [59], syntax CBF for largest TU indicates whether the TU includes no-zero coefficient that is residual or presented as coded) ; determining whether the root TU is split into multiple nodes ([59]), each of the multiple nodes being associated with a block ([57], a TU or node represents all or a portion of the residual blocks for the CU), including determining that a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition relating to a predetermined maximum TU size ([64], when a TU has a size larger than a maximum permitted size for the CU (e.g. the maximum allowed size of a TU of a CU) is a condition); determining values of multiple preceding CBFs for multiple blocks ([70]-[73], CBFs of root TU and any parent TU could be the preceding CBSs of blocks in a tree structure, that either is received by decoder or inferred from other TUs), the values of the multiple preceding CBFs indicating the multiple blocks, respectively, do not include residual information ([63]); and based at least in part on the values of the multiple preceding CBFs indicating the multiple blocks, respectively, do not include residual information, determining a value of a CBF for a given block, the value of the CBF for the given block indicating that the given block includes residual information, wherein the compressed data does not include the value of the CBF for the given block ([63], [73], the given block is a sub-TU or child, the CBF thereof is inferred, meaning no CBF is coded).
Wang fails to disclose wherein the determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied includes determining that log2(a TU size) < log2(the predetermined maximum TU size) .
However, Lee teaches wherein the determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied includes determining that log2(a TU size) < log2(the predetermined maximum TU size) (Page 4th, the equation of MaxTuDepth−1≦log.sub.2(MaxTransformSize)−log.sub.2(MinTransformSize) suggests a condition or part of some conditions for the partitioning in a quadtree , such as how deep the partitioning would go, in that the size of Tus would be determined as between a maximum and a minimum).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Wang to include the teaching in the same field or endeavor of Lee, in order to provide a additional syntax and deterministic method to present tree structure, as identified by Lee.
Regarding claims 22, 34, Wang discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the given CU has been encoded using inter- prediction ([56]).
Regarding claims 23, 35, Wang discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the compressed data includes a tree structure for the residual quadtree, the tree structure including: one or more values of split flags for TUs of the residual quadtree ([05]).
Regarding claims 24, 36, Wang discloses The method of claim 23, wherein the tree structure further includes: zero or more values of CBFs for the TUs of the residual quadtree; and for each un-split TU of the residual quadtree that includes residual information, residual information for that un-split TU of the residual quadtree ([29], [201]).
Regarding claims 25, 31, 37, Wang discloses The method of claim 21, wherein, within the bitstream, any values of CBFs for the multiple nodes are signaled in a tree structure for the residual quadtree ([95]).
Regarding claims 26, 32, 38, Wang discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the multiple blocks and the given block are on a same level of the residual quadtree (Fig.4).
Regarding claims 27, 39, wang discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the operations further include, for the given CU: performing prediction operations to produce predicted values for the given CU; and combining the predicted values and the residual information for the given CU to reconstruct pixel values for the given CU ([57], [158]).
Regarding claims 28, 40, Wang discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the given block is for a luma component ([58]).
Regarding claims 29, 33, see the rejection for claim 21.
Regarding claims 30, 36, Wang discloses The one or more computer-readable media of claim 29, wherein the compressed data includes a tree structure for the residual quadtree, the tree structure including: one or more values of split flags for TUs of the residual quadtree; zero or more values of CBFs for the TUs of the residual quadtree; and for each un-split TU of the residual quadtree that includes residual information, residual information for that un-split TU of the residual quadtree ([05], [29], [201]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20130003824 A1, EP 3745724 A1, AU 2012277220 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) EST.
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 at (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 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487