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
Claims 1-14 filed on 06/06/2025 are pending.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S Application No. 19/259163. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the copending U.S patent application to meet the limitations of the instant claims. Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the copending application claims.
This is a provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in the instant Application No. 19/230675 vs. Application No. 19/259163
Appl. 19230675
Appl. 19259163
1. A method for decoding video data, comprising: obtaining a bitstream; obtaining an information related to one or more convolutional cross-component models (CCCMs) from the bitstream, wherein each of the one or more CCCMs comprises a filter shape and a set of weighting coefficients corresponding to the filter shape for predicting each of chroma sample values of a video block from the bitstream based on a plurality of corresponding luma sample values; and decoding the video data based on the information related to the one or more CCCMs.
1. A method for decoding video data, comprising: obtaining a video block from a bitstream; obtaining a reference luma sample value and a reference chroma sample value in an external region of the video block; predicting each of chroma sample values of the video block by: deriving one or more pre-operated values with arithmetical operations based on a plurality of non-down-sampled luma sample values corresponding to the chroma sample value to be predicted; applying a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) to the plurality of non-down-sampled luma sample values and the one or more pre-operated values reduced by the reference luma sample value respectively to derive a result of the CCCM; and obtaining the predicted chroma sample value based on the result of the CCCM and the reference chroma sample value; and obtaining a predicted video block based on multiple predicted chroma sample values.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining information indicating whether to enable regularization process for the convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) from the bitstream, wherein the CCCM comprises a filter shape and a set of weighting coefficients corresponding to the filter shape for predicting each of the chroma sample values of the video block based on a plurality of corresponding luma sample values of the video block; and decoding the video block based on the information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huo et al. (“Huo”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2025/0233986 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Huo meets the claim limitations as follows (emphasis added):
A method for decoding video data, comprising: obtaining a bitstream [Fig. 5A, 5B; para. 0020: ‘a bitstream, which is generated … according to information to be encoded’]; obtaining an information (e.g. ‘the number of coefficients of a target filter, a shape of the target filter, a value of a filter shape parameter, …, or …’) [Fig. 5A, 5B, 12, 13; para. 0020, 0405: ‘determining the coefficients of the target filter’] related to one or more convolutional cross-component models (CCCMs) from the bitstream [Figs. 1, 2, 7-10; para. 0369, 0400-0448: CCCM], wherein each of the one or more CCCMs comprises a filter shape and a set of weighting coefficients corresponding to the filter shape for predicting each of chroma sample values of a video block from the bitstream based on a plurality of corresponding luma sample values [para. 0369, 0400-0448, 0676-0688: ‘a chroma prediction value of the current block is calculated according to the filter coefficients’]; and decoding the video data based on the information related to the one or more CCCMs [Figs. 1, 2, 7-10; para. 0503, 0633, 0642: ‘so that at the decoding end, the Flag may be parsed to determine whether to use the chroma prediction value of the CP-CCCM mode of the current block to replace the weighted chroma prediction value of the current block’].
Regarding claim 2, Huo meets the claim limitations as follows (emphasis added):
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more CCCMs comprises one or more respective CCCMs for decoding the video data at different coding levels [para. 0080-0081: different coding levels ‘CU’, ‘TU’, ‘PU’ or ‘CB’].
Regarding claim 7, the corresponding encoding method in the claim is identical in scope and reverse function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 8, the corresponding encoding method in the claim is identical in scope and reverse function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 14, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Note: Claim 14 is directed to a non-statutory computer readable recording medium that stores the bitstream generated by the method of claim 1. Claim 14 is a product claim. However, the CRM is missing the stored instructions executed by a processor to perform the functions of method claim 1. How the bitstream was generated and the content of the bitstream are both not given patentable weight as prescribed in both MPEP 2113 and 2111.05(III). Therefore, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by a reference (i.e. Huo, para. 0037) which recites a storage medium storing 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo in view of Du et al. (“Du”) [US 2022/0295053 A1]
Regarding claim 3, Huo meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Huo does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 2, wherein the information comprises a first syntax element in a first coding level for indicating one or more of: whether to enable CCCM with down-sampled process at the first coding level; whether to enable CCCM without down-sampled process at the first coding level; whether to enable different filter shapes at the first coding level; the number of different filter shapes being used at the first coding level; or which of the filter shapes are used at the first coding level.
However in the same field of endeavor Du discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the information comprises a first syntax element (i.e. ‘the index from a syntax signaling’) in a first coding level (i.e. ‘a sequence parameter set (SPS)’) [para. 0026, 0239] for indicating one or more of: whether to enable CCCM with down-sampled process at the first coding level; whether to enable CCCM without down-sampled process at the first coding level; whether to enable different filter shapes at the first coding level; the number of different filter shapes being used at the first coding level; or which of the filter shapes are used at the first coding level [para. 0026, 0239-0240, 0250: ‘an index indicative of a selected filter shape configuration is signaled in …. (SPS) …’].
Huo and Du are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Huo and Du as motivation to signal an index of flexible filter shape in a high level syntax (HLS), such as … (VPS), … (SPS), … (PPS), … (APS), a slice header, a frame header, and the like [Du: para. 0026] for the reduction of redundancy [Du: para. 0005].
Regarding claim 4, Huo meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 3.
Huo does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 3, wherein the information further comprises a second syntax element in a second coding level lower than the first coding level for indicating one or more of: whether to enable CCCM with down-sampled process at the second coding level; whether to enable CCCM without down-sampled process at the second coding level; whether to enable different filter shapes at the second coding level; the number of different filter shapes being used at the second coding level; or which of the filter shapes are used at the second coding level.
However in the same field of endeavor Du discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the information further comprises a second syntax element (i.e. ‘the index from a syntax signaling’) in a second coding level (e.g. ‘PPS’, ‘a slice header’, ‘a frame header’ or the like) [para. 0026, 0239] lower than the first coding level for indicating one or more of: whether to enable CCCM with down-sampled process at the second coding level; whether to enable CCCM without down-sampled process at the second coding level; whether to enable different filter shapes at the second coding level; the number of different filter shapes being used at the second coding level; or which of the filter shapes are used at the second coding level [para. 0026, 0239-0240, 0250: ‘an index indicative of a selected filter shape configuration is signaled in …. (PPS), … (APS), a slice header, a frame header, and the like’].
Huo and Du are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Huo and Du as motivation to signal an index of flexible filter shape in a high level syntax (HLS), such as … (VPS), … (SPS), … (PPS), … (APS), a slice header, a frame header, and the like [Du: para. 0026] for the reduction of redundancy [Du: para. 0005].
Regarding claim 9, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Claims 5 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo in view of Du in further view of Yin et al. (“Yin”) [US 12,627,798 B2]
Regarding claim 5, Huo meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 4.
Huo does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 4, further comprising: in response to the first syntax element indicating that different filter shapes are enabled at the first coding level or the number of different filter shapes being used at the first coding level, determining that the second syntax element is used to indicate: the number of different filter shapes being used at the second coding level; or which of the filter shapes are used at the second coding level.
However in the same field of endeavor Du discloses the deficient claim as follows:
in response to the first syntax element indicating that different filter shapes are enabled at the first coding level or the number of different filter shapes (i.e. ‘a group of filter shape configuration’) [para. 0026, 0239-0240, 0250: ‘selects the first filter shape configuration from a group of filters …’] being used at the first coding level, determining that the second syntax element is used to indicate: the number of different filter shapes being used at the second coding level; or which of the filter shapes (e.g., ‘an index’) are used at the second coding level (e.g. ‘a slice header’, ‘a frame header’ or ‘the like’) [para. 0026, 0239-0240, 0250: ‘an index indicative of a selected filter shape configuration is signaled in …. a slice header, a frame header, and the like’].
Huo and Du are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Huo and Du as motivation to signal an index of flexible filter shape in a high level syntax (HLS), such as … (VPS), … (SPS), … (PPS), … (APS), a slice header, a frame header, and the like [Du: para. 0026] for the reduction of redundancy [Du: para. 0005].
Du does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
in response to the first syntax element indicating that different filter shapes are enabled at the first coding level or the number of different filter shapes being used at the first coding level, determining that the second syntax element is used to indicate: the number of different filter shapes being used at the second coding level; or which of the filter shapes are used at the second coding level.
However in the same field of endeavor Yin discloses the deficient claim as follows:
in response to the first syntax element indicating that different filter shapes are enabled (i.e. ‘ALF on/off flags’) [col. 13: ‘ALF on/off flags are signaled at sequence’; ‘alf_lum_filter_signal_flag’] at the first coding level (i.e. ‘sequence’ level) or the number of different filter shapes [col. 13: ‘alf_luma_num_filters_signalled_minus1’] being used at the first coding level, determining that the second syntax element (i.e. ‘at picture, slice and CTB level’) [col. 13] is used to indicate: the number of different filter shapes being used at the second coding level (i.e. ‘filter usage information is signalled at picture, slice and CTB level’) [col. 13]; or which of the filter shapes (e.g., ‘filtIdx’) are used at the second coding level (i.e. ‘filter usage information is signalled at picture, slice and CTB level’) [col. 13].
Huo, Du and Yin are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Huo and Du as motivation to signal filter on/off flags at sequence level and filter usage information at picture slice and CTB levels for improving the performance of the filtering tool [Yin: Abstract].
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Claims 6 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo in view of Du in further view of Tsai et al. (“Tsai”) [US 2012/0207227 A1]
Regarding claim 6, Huo in view of Du meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 4.
Huo does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 4, further comprising: in response to the first syntax element indicating that CCCM without down-sampled process is enabled at the first coding level, determining that the second syntax element is used to indicate: whether to enable CCCM without down-sampled process at the second coding level.
However in the same field of endeavor Tsai discloses the deficient claim as follows:
in response to the first syntax element indicating that CCCM without down-sampled process is enabled at the first coding level (e.g., ‘pps_alf_param()’) [Figs. 5, 17: ‘if (adaptive_loop_filter_flag)’ in pps level; para. 0056, 0077], determining that the second syntax element is used to indicate [Fig. 4: Slice Header: ALF CU ON/OFF]: whether to enable CCCM without down-sampled process at the second coding level [Figs. 5, 17: ‘if (adaptive_loop_filter_flag)’ in slice level; para. 0056-0077].
Huo, Du and Tsai are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Huo, Du and Tsai as motivation to ‘adaptively use the common information and/or the ALF information in the picture level’ [Tsai: para. 0056-0057] so as to allow parallel ALF processing as well as eliminate un-necessary redundancy of common information in the [Tsai: para. 0056-0057].
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights