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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11 of the Remarks, filed 6/18/2026, with respect to the combination of Galpin and Choi have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 103 of the claims has been withdrawn.
In regard to the rejection for Double Patenting the applicant asserts that the rejection is premature as the claims may be amended during prosecution. The examiner notes MPEP 2173.06 which instructs examiners to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process. Thus the rejection is not premature as the examiner has a duty to review each claim for compliance with every statutory requirement and identify all applicable grounds of rejection to avoid unnecessary delays in the prosecution. Thus the applicants assertion that the rejection for double patenting is premature is not persuasive as the examiner is instructed to provide such rejections at the earliest opportunity.
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 1-4, 6 , 8-15 and 19-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,390. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the examiner notes that detail from the dependent claims 8 and 19 of the instant application are incorporated into the independent claims 1, 11, 21 and 24 of the ‘390 application and the term ‘one or more layers’ has been replaced with the phrase ‘neural network’ in some cases, however, the disclosure of the claims of the instant application are entirely encompassed by the disclosure of the ‘390 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the rejection for Double Patenting above Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15 and 19-29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 12 and 23-24 describe methods and processes for video coding including dividing a set of input samples into two or more subsets, determining a size for each of the two input and/or output subsets based on side information, processing input subsets using a neural network including one or more layers to generate output subsets, and after processing with the neural network cropping one or more output samples wherein the position or amount of cropping to be performed on the output samples is determined based on the side information.
The closest arts are Galpin and Choi. Galpin discloses encoding using a multi-layer neural network where an input is partitioned into a plurality of blocks that are padded to increase the block size and is decoded using the neural network, where the padding is removed during the neural network processing. Galpin fails to disclose any cropping performed after reconstruction by the neural network as required by the independent claims. Choi discloses including window conformance information in a picture parameter set (PPS) to indicate an amount of padding and cropping to be performed on sub-pictures of a cube-map encoded video. However, Choi is directed to encoding of a 360 degree video divided into cube-map subpictures and does not disclose coding using a neural network as required by the independent claims. Thus none of the references teach all of the limitations required by the independent claims.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13-15 , 19-22 and 25-29 depend from claims 1, 12 and 23-24 respectively and are allowed for the same reasons.
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 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 2481
Prosecution Insights