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 .
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, 1, 3-11, 11, and 13-20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,359 B2 in view of Deshpande, US 2016/0165247 A1.
Instant Claim 1,
Claim 1, US 12,284,359 B2
An apparatus for processing video data, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to a memory, the processor being configured to:
An apparatus for processing video data, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to a memory, the processor being configured to:
obtain first encoded data for a first portion of an image;
obtain an indication of a target latency;
determine a number of rows of pixels for the first portion of the image based on a partition height of the first encoded data,
determine a number of rows of pixels for a first portion of an image based on the target latency;
wherein the number of rows of pixels defines a condition for output of an indication that the first portion of the image is available;
decode the first encoded data to generate first pixel data for the number of rows of pixels of the first portion of the image;
decode the first encoded data to generate first pixel data for the number of rows of pixels of the first portion of the image;
output the first pixel data for the first portion of the image to the memory; and
output the first pixel data for the first portion of the image to the memory;
output the indication based on the first pixel data for the number of rows of pixels being decoded and output to the memory.
and output an indication that the first portion of the image is available.
While the claims of the ‘359 differ in that they do not explicitly recite “output[ting] the indication that the first portion of the image is available based on the first pixel data for the number of rows of pixels being decoded and output to the memory”, the “output an indication” clause in the ‘659 claim 1 corresponds to this feature because it outputs an “indication that the first portion of the image is available, which “first portion” is previously defined in the claim as having a “number of rows based on a target latency.”
While the claims of the ‘359 patent do not recite “determine a number of rows of pixels for the first portion of the image based on a partition height of the first encoded data;”, this feature is disclosed in an analogous art by Deshpande, US 2016/0165247 A1, which discloses in [0588], “The row_height_minus1[i]plus1 specifies the height of the i-th tile row in units of coding tree blocks.” The height of a tile row is therefore constrained to be an integer multiple of the coding tree block (partition) height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Deshpande, of determining a number of pixel rows for an image subpicture based on a CTU partition height, in order to facilitate parallel and independent decoding of the slices/subpictures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art does not disclose or make obvious:
determine a number of rows of pixels for the first portion of the image based on a partition height of the first encoded data, wherein the number of rows of pixels defines a condition for output of an indication that the first portion of the image is available;
output the indication based on the first pixel data for the number of rows of pixels being decoded and output to the memory.
The closest prior art, Potetsianakis, US 2024/0056614 A1, discloses outputting an indication that a subpicture portion of a frame is available for rendering is disclosed in an analogous art by Potetsianakis, which discloses outputting a flag indicating which areas of a picture are decoded, and which portions are not yet decoded. See Potetsianakis [0173]-[0174]: “For example, in an embodiment, the output information may identify which areas of a picture that is processed by the decoder are already decoded and/or which areas of the picture are not yet decoded. “The message will be updated during decoding until each area is filled in with DU pixels. This message or at least the information in the message may be signaled to an application at every partial output. See also Table 6 in Potetsianakis.
However, each decoding unit/DU in Potetsianakis is a rectangular subdivision of a tile, as shown in figure 3b, and as disclosed in [0083]. The output information identifying which areas of a picture are processed are therefore not based on whole rows of a frame being processed, as in the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights