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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements submitted on 03/19/2025 and 12/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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. Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,512. 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 “determining whether one or more of the first blocks of the neighboring blocks and the current block are in a same coding tree unit (CTU).”
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (US 2021/0176461) cited in IDS, hereinafter “LI” in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0070100) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Chen”.
As per claim 1, LI discloses a method of video decoding performed in a video decoder (FIG. 3; paragraph 0027), the method comprising:
receiving coded information of a current block…from a coded video bitstream (paragraphs 0066 and 0257, The decoding apparatus 300 may receive a signal output from the encoding apparatus of FIG. 2 in the form of a bitstream…the decoding apparatus may receive information related to a residual for the current block), the neighboring blocks including first blocks and second blocks, each of the first blocks being adjacent to one of a top side, an above left corner, and an above right corner of the current block and each of the second blocks being adjacent to one of a left side and a below left corner of the current block (see FIG. 11 and Paragraphs 0115-0116);
determining whether one or more of the first blocks of the neighboring blocks and the current block are in a same coding tree unit (CTU) (Abstract, deriving MPM candidates for a current block based on a neighboring block adjacent to the current block ; See also Paragraphs 0207, 0209, and 0212 in regard to whether a neighboring block is included in a current CTU);
in response to the one or more of the first blocks of the neighboring blocks and the current block being in the same CTU, adding a respective intra mode associated with each of the one or more of the first blocks into a most probable mode (MPM) list for the current block based on a sequence of conditions (Paragraph 0151, if the condition 3 is satisfied, this means that both L and A are directional intra prediction modes. Accordingly, the encoding/decoding apparatus may add the planar mode and the DC mode, (i.e., intra prediction modes), to the MPM list as MPM candidates… ; See also Paragraphs 0213-0214, MPM candidates may be additionally derived according to predetermined conditions based on the first MPM candidate derived from the first neighboring block and the second MPM candidate derived from the second neighboring block), the sequence of conditions corresponding to an order in which the respective intra mode is determined to be added into the MPM list (Paragraph 0137-0149 and 0151-0161, sequence of conditions, See also Paragraphs 0213-0214 and 0242, decoding apparatus may differently configure an MPM list based on whether such a condition is satisfied based on the first MPM candidate and the second MPM candidate);
adding a respective intra mode associated with each of the second blocks of the neighboring blocks into the MPM list based on the sequence of conditions (Paragraphs 0151-0161, 0213-0214 and 0242, in regard to intra mode associated with particular blocks of the neighboring blocks, added into the MPM list based on a sequence of conditions); and
reconstructing the current block based on the MPM list (Abstract, video decoding method generating a reconstructed picture for the current block; See also Paragraph 0010 and claims 15 and 29, as related to reconstructing a current block based on an MPM list).
However, LI does not explicitly disclose receiving coded information of…neighboring blocks of the current block from a coded video bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses receiving coded information of…neighboring blocks of the current block from a coded video bitstream (Paragraph 0314-0315: During the decoding process, video decoder 30 receives an encoded video bitstream that represents video blocks of an encoded video slice and associated syntax elements from video encoder 20…Video decoder 30 may receive the syntax elements at the video slice level and/or the video block level…When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 74 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture, wherein the neighboring blocks also includes first blocks and second blocks, each of the first blocks being adjacent to one of a top side, an above left corner, and an above right corner of the current block and each of the second blocks being adjacent to one of a left side and a below left corner of the current block, as taught in FIGs. 12-13 and Paragraph 0228).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by LI, with those of Chen, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to generating an MPM list based on neighboring blocks of a current block, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20140161180, US 20210329230, US 20180077410, US 20210176493, US 20230079960, WO 2023055220)
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