DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under PCT EP2020 082768 filed on 11/19/2020.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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, 140F.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 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ761 (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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(l) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms.Thefiling date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AI A/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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,422.
The claims at issue are not identical because the present invention contains the following limitation in the independent claims that is not claimed in the US Patent: the up-sampling of the chroma component is based on a sample of the luma component, and the US Patent contains the following limitation in the independent claims that is not claimed in the present invention: the up-sampling comprises processing the chroma component by a trained network.
However, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim encoding/decoding embodiments that have a picture portion including a luma component and a chroma component with a resolution lower than a resolution of the luma component, the method comprising: up/down-sampling the chroma component to obtain an up/down-sampled chroma component matching the resolution of the luma component, and encoding/decoding the luma component and the up/down-sampled chroma component into a bitstream.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segall, US 2009/0175338 A1 (Segall), in view of Kim et al, US 2017/0019672 A1 (Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Segall discloses a method for encoding a picture portion, implemented by an encoder, the picture portion including a luma component and a chroma component with a resolution lower than a resolution of the luma component, the method comprising:
up-sampling the chroma component to obtain an up-sampled chroma component matching the resolution of the luma component (Segall [0056] - YLDR, CbₗDR and CrLDR may not be represented at the same resolution, the components may be resampled...the chroma components may be up-sampled to match the resolution of the luma component),
wherein the up-sampling of the chroma component is based on a sample of the luma component (Segall [0056] - YLDR, CbLDR and CrLDR may not be represented at the same resolution, the components may be resampled. the chroma components may be up-sampled to match the resolution of the luma component).
However, Segall does not explicitly disclose encoding the luma component and the up-sampled chroma component into a bitstream.
Kim teaches encoding the luma component and the up-sampled chroma component into a bitstream (Kim [0076] - image information in which chroma data included in image data is up-sampled and chroma data of one of odd lines or even lines in a plurality of lines among the up-sampled chroma data and luma data included in the image data are encoded).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Segall to encode the luma component and the up-sampled chroma component into a bitstream, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated as the matching resolution can be used to sync the portions of the images.
With regard to claim 10, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 10.
With regard to claim 18, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 18.
With regard to claim 19, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 19.
With regard to claim 20, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 20.
With regard to claim 21, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 21.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segall and Kim, in view of Pardeshi et al, US 2022/0012858 A1 (Pardeshi).
Regarding Claim 9, Segall and Kim teach the method according to any of claims 1, as outlined above.
However, Segall does not explicitly disclose the encoding is performed by a variational autoencoder (VAE).
Pardeshi teaches the encoding is performed by a VAE (Pardeshi [0057] – multiple objects may map to a single VAE, and each assigned distinct VAE can encode portions of an image consisting of objects to which that network was assigned).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Segall to have the encoding performed by a VAE, as taught by Pardeshi. One would be motivated to generate data using variations of the input to find a good mix of processing requirements and quality.
With regard to claim 17, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 9 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 9 is applied to claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome the double patent rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights