CTNF 19/212,365 CTNF 87622 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20090257499 A1 (Karczewicz) US 20130182780 A1 (Alshin) US 20180262756 A1 (Filippov) US 20170302950 A1 (Xu) US 20120269261 A1 (Fig.13 filter selection in interpredicton) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim recites “other parameters comprise variation flags relating to a direction vector” , which is not supported by applicant specification . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Alshin Regarding Claim 1 . Karczewicz teaches Image data decoding apparatus [ (para 8, Fig.3) ] comprising: an inter-image predictor configured to predict samples of a current image region, of a plurality of regions of an image in a sequence of images, with respect to a reference image region of another, reference, image of the sequence of images, [ (para 55-60: 4: please note pixel => claimed sample:video or image block=> region of image: and video frames, previous, current frame etc. are sequence of image ) ] according to a direction vector indicating a spatial displacement of the reference image region from the current image region: [ (para 93: a vector indicate a direction) ] : the inter-image predictor comprising an interpolation filter configured to generate the predicted samples of the current image region by spatial interpolation of samples of the reference image region [ (para 57) ] , at least in instances where the direction vector indicates a spatial displacement of a non-integer number of samples [ (sub-pixel para 93) ] , in which the interpolation filter is configured to operate according to a set of filter parameters each defining of a set of filters providing interpolation [ (“sets of interpolation filter coefficients” in para 36, 37, 52) ] at a spatial displacement resolution of 1/m sample, where m is an integer greater than one: [ (half-pixel, quarter-pixel in para 59:sub-pixel in para 93) ] : and a filter response selector configured to select, a set of the filter parameters from two or more candidate sets of filter parameters for use in respect of at least the current image region [ (“adaptively defines the interpolation filter (by selecting filter coefficients)” para 37, 76, 90) ] Karczewicz does not explicitly show selecting filter parameter based on a scaling parameter the scaling parameter being a parameter other than a quantization parameter for the current image region. Karczwicz is not also explicit about the set of filtering parameters (Karczewicz case these parameters are filter taps {para 9} or coefficients defining different filters {para 36}) each defining the spatial frequency response. However, given that in Karczewicz these different parameters {tap, coefficients} defining different filters {para 36} it is understood/implied that they are also defining frequency response, because each filter has a frequency response. Given that this filter is applied spatially {para 70 and Fig.4, on an image hence the spatial frequency response}) However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Alshin explicitly indicates in fact interpolation filtering tap/coefficients/parameters defining the spatial frequency response [ (para 15, 90 and Fig.1:please note that the filter is applied on an image that has spatial dimension, hence the spatial frequency response ) ] And selecting filter parameter based on a scaling parameter the scaling parameter being a parameter other than a quantization parameter for the current image region. [ (Alshin interpolation selection, based on interpolation location and smoothness{para 9, 20}; based on a scaling factor {para 16}; pixel characteristics {para 17}, color component {para 19}, basis functions, window function {para 88} bit depth {para 252}; ) ] Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide enhance adaptability of the interpolation filter and improve coding/decoding performance. Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 2 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the scaling parameter is a compression parameter [ (Alshin para 189; para 226 for encoder side using; smoothing parameter, bit depth etc. are compression parameter, as they define the compression efficiency with quality tradeoff ) ] . Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 3 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the filter response selector configured to select the set of filter parameters based on the scaling parameter and other parameters, neither the scaling parameter nor the other parameters explicitly identifying providing an identifier for the set of filter parameters to be used from the two or more candidate sets of parameters. [ (Alshin para 246, 252 “the decoder 230 may select and use an interpolation filter appropriate for a current pixel to perform sub-pel-unit motion compensation according to a sub-pel-unit interpolation location .alpha., the number of filter taps, a bit depth, a scaling factor, etc.”; Also see para 247 ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 4 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein a selection of a set of the filter parameters from two or more candidate sets of filter parameters is derived from both the scaling parameter and other parameters. [ (see above cited portions of Alshin for multiple parameters ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 9 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of filters parameters comprises filter parameters for a predetermined number of fractional positions. [ (Alshin para 189, Fig.8A ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 10 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 9, wherein filter parameters are not provided in a set of filter parameters for zero fractional motion. [ (Alshin para 189, Fig.8A) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 11 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 9, wherein the filter parameters are different for a respective fractional position. [ (Alshin para 189, Fig.8A ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 12 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 9, wherein the filter parameters are different between candidate sets of parameters. [ (Alshin para 189, Fig.8A ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 13 . The image data decoding apparatus of claim 9, wherein some but not all filter parameters are different between candidate sets of parameters. [ (Alshin para 189, Fig.8A ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin additionally teaches with respect to claim 14 . Video storage, capture, transmission or reception apparatus comprising apparatus according to claim 1. [ (Karczewicz para 21 ) ] Regarding Claims 15-18 : See analysis of claim 1 and para 26-27 of Karczewicz 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Alshin in view of Xu Regarding Claim 5. Karczewicz in view of Alshin does not explicitly show that other parameters are information relating to a direction vector However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Xu teaches other parameters are information relating to a direction vector [ (para 83 ) ] Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities both Karczewicz and Xu are discussing use for interpolation filtering techniques in inter-prediction, therefore using one into another doing the same in the final combination would be predictable.. Xu additionally teaches claim 6. The image data decoding apparatus of claim 5, wherein the other parameters comprise variation flags relating to a direction vector [ (Xu para 18, indicate inter-prediction mode corresponding to the selected motion vector in the bitstream; quarter-pel, half-pel and integer-pel ) ] 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Alshin in view of Filippov Regarding Claim 7. Alshin teaches wherein a selection of a set of the filter parameters from two or more candidate sets of filter parameters is derived from the scaling parameter, and scaling parameter corresponds to specific filter parameters [ (Fig.8 ) ] Karczewicz in view of Alshin does not explicitly show a default filter selection However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Filippov teaches default filter selection for inter-prediction [ (para 159 ) ] Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination improves decoding performance as it reduces amount of information needed to be decoded [ (Filippov para 159 ) ] Filippov additionally teaches claim 8. The image data decoding apparatus of claim 7, wherein the default set of filter parameters comprises filter parameters for a predetermined number of fractional positions. [ (Filippov para 159; quarter-pel, half-pel and integer-pel ) ] Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-4, 9-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12309377 in view of Alshin. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, with respect to claim 1 the patented claims teaches all the limitations except “and a filter response selector configured to select, based on a scaling parameter, a set of the filter parameters from two or more candidate sets of filter parameters for use in respect of at least the current image region, the scaling parameter being a parameter other than a quantisation parameter for the current image region.” . Applying the analysis and rationale of the prior art, this is obvious. Other claims are obvious variations of patented claims . 08-36 AIA Claim s 5--8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12309377 in view of Alshin in view of Filippov or Xu. See analyses of prior art rejections . 08-35 AIA Claim s 1, 15, 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 of copending Application No. 19338653 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant independent claims each are obvious variation of pending claim 1 This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 2-14, 16, 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 19338653 in view of Karczewicz in view Alshin in view of Filippov . The instant dependent claims have additional limitations that are found in these prior art (see the prior art analysis).Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 2 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 3 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 4 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 5 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 6 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 7 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 8 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 9 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 10 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 11 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/212,365 Page 12 Art Unit: 2426
Prosecution Insights