DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,342. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the outstanding application further recites conditions for using a “long filter”, a feature that was only implied in U.S. Patent No. 11,818,342 which applied a maximum filter length on large blocks (greater than 32 samples vertically or horizontally).
Application No. 11,191,393 Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 11,818,342 Claim 1
A method of filtering reconstructed video data in a video decoder, the method comprising:
A method of filtering reconstructed video data, the method comprising:
receiving an array of reconstructed luma samples including a P-block and a Q-block that are both adjacent to an intra sub-partitions (ISP) edge, wherein: the array of reconstructed luma samples is generated by reconstructing an intra- predicted block in an ISP mode,
receiving an array of reconstructed luma samples including a P-block and a Q-block that are both adjacent to an intra sub-partitions (ISP) edge;
the intra-predicted block is divided into a plurality of intra-predicted sub-partitions, including the P-block and the Q-block, to generate a plurality of ISP boundaries between the plurality of intra-predicted sub-partitions, and the ISP edge is one of the plurality of ISP boundaries and positioned between the P-block and the Q-block;
determining whether a first size of an edge of one of the P-block and the Q-block is greater than or equal to 32, wherein the edge of the one of the P-block and the Q-block is perpendicular to the ISP edge
determining a first maximum filter length based on whether a first size of an edge of one of the P-block and the Q-block, that is perpendicular to the ISP edge, is greater than or equal to 32;
determining a first maximum filter length based on the determination of whether the first size is greater than or equal to 32
determining whether a long filter is used based on the first size of the edge of the one of the P-block and the Q-block; and
(see above)
deblocking the array of the reconstructed luma samples using the long filter based on the determined first maximum filter length in a case of using the long filter.
deblocking the array of the reconstructed luma samples based on the determined first maximum filter length.
Claims 2-8 are similarly unpatentable over claims 2-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,342.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,837. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the outstanding application further recites conditions for using a “long filter” for edges greater than 32 samples while U.S. Patent No. 12,316,837 applies a shorter filter for edges less than 32 samples. Both are drawn to the same invention and only differ in explicit recitation of situational application (specifically which filter is chosen based on length) while being drawn to the same invention of choosing a filter based on length.
Application No. 11,191,393 Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 12,316,837 Claim 1
A method of filtering reconstructed video data in a video decoder, the method comprising:
A method of filtering reconstructed video data, the method comprising:
receiving an array of reconstructed luma samples including a P-block and a Q-block that are both adjacent to an intra sub-partitions (ISP) edge, wherein:
receiving an array of reconstructed luma samples including a P-block and a Q-block that are both adjacent to an intra sub-partitions (ISP) edge, wherein:
the array of reconstructed luma samples is generated by reconstructing an intra- predicted block in an ISP mode,
the array of reconstructed luma samples is generated by reconstructing an intra-predicted block in an ISP mode
the intra-predicted block is divided into a plurality of intra-predicted sub-partitions, including the P-block and the Q-block, to generate a plurality of ISP boundaries between the plurality of intra-predicted sub-partitions, and
the intra-predicted block is divided into a plurality of intra-predicted sub-partitions, including the P-block and the Q-block, to generate a plurality of ISP boundaries between the plurality of intra-predicted sub-partitions, and
the ISP edge is one of the plurality of ISP boundaries and positioned between the P-block and the Q-block;
the ISP edge is one of the plurality of ISP boundaries and positioned between the P-block and the Q-block;
determining a first maximum filter length based on whether a first size of an edge of one of the P-block and the Q-block, that is perpendicular to the ISP edge, is greater than or equal to 32;
determining a first maximum filter length based on whether a first size of an edge of one of the P-block and the Q-block, that is perpendicular to the ISP edge, is less than 32
determining whether a long filter is used based on the first size of the edge of the one of the P-block and the Q-block; and
(see above)
deblocking the array of the reconstructed luma samples using the long filter based on the determined first maximum filter length in a case of using the long filter.
deblocking the array of the reconstructed luma samples based on the determined first maximum filter length.
Claims 2-8 are similarly unpatentable over claims 2-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,837.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowable over the prior art. As recited by the examiner previously in U.S. Patent numbers 11,818,342 and 12,316,837, the claimed invention appears to a drawn to a unique combination of known elements for filtering reconstructed video data where an edge length perpendicular to the ISP boundary (width of block if ISP boundary is vertical or height of block if ISP boundary is horizontal) is used to determine the maximum filter length. Using block size to determine the amount of filtering performed on a block is generally well known (see for example Yang et al. 2019/0124359 in addition to the prior art of record). Using specific block dimensions relative to ISP boundaries was also recently known at the time of effective filing (as cited by applicant when referencing VVC and JVET documents, see paragraph 0003 of the originally filed specification). It is the combination of dynamic ISP block sub-partitioning followed by setting filter length limitations dependent upon whether the edge length is greater or less than 32 that does not appear to be expressly taught or reasonably suggested in the prior art at the time of effective filing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC D SALTARELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7302. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/DOMINIC D SALTARELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights