DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 9,100,634 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 10,743,010 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik I”) and Esenlik et al. (US 9,693,067 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik II”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses an image decoding method for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding a plurality of slices into which an image is partitioned and each of which includes a plurality of coding units, the method comprising decoding the coded signal, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a slice header, information used for another slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, the image includes a plurality of rows each of which includes two or more of the coding units, and when the normal slice starts at a position other than a beginning of a first row, a second row immediately following the first row does not start with the dependent slice, wherein in the decoding, arithmetic decoding of the second row is initialized using a context obtained after arithmetic decoding of one of the coding units that is located second in the first row.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU, wherein the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs.
Esenlik I teaches each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik I into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Esenlik II teaches the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik II into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 9,282,334 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 10,743,010 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik I”) and Esenlik et al. (US 9,693,067 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik II”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses an image coding method for coding a plurality of slices into which an image is partitioned and each of which includes a plurality of coding units, to generate a bitstream, the method comprising: partitioning the image into the slices; and coding the slices resulting from the partitioning, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a slice header, information used for another slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, the image includes a plurality of rows each of which includes two or more of the coding units, and in the partitioning, when the normal slice starts at a position other than a beginning of a first row, the image is partitioned into the slices to cause a second row immediately following the first row to not start with the dependent slice, wherein in the coding, arithmetic coding of the second row is initialized using a context obtained after arithmetic coding of one of the coding units that is located second in the first row.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU, wherein the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs.
Esenlik I teaches each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik I into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Esenlik II teaches the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik II into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 9,420,297 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 10,743,010 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik I”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses an image coding method for coding a plurality of slices into which an image is partitioned and each of which includes a plurality of coding units, to generate a bitstream, the method comprising: partitioning the image into the slices; and coding the slices by a wavefront parallel processing, wherein each of the slices is either a normal slice having, in a slice header, information used for another slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, the image includes a plurality of rows each of which includes two or more of the coding units, in the partitioning, when the normal slice starts at a position other than a beginning of a first row, the image is partitioned into the slices to cause a second row immediately following the first row to not start with the dependent slice, the wavefront parallel processing includes synchronizing context and probability information in the beginning of each of the slices, and in the synchronizing, a slice of a beginning of the second row does not refer to slice information of the normal slice.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU.
Esenlik I teaches each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik I into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 9,693,067 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 10,743,010 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik I”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses an image decoding method for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding a plurality of slices into which an image is partitioned and each of which includes a plurality of coding units, the method comprising: decoding the plurality of slices included in the coded signal by a wavefront parallel processing, wherein each of the plurality of slices is either a normal slice having, in a slice header, information used for another slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, the image includes a plurality of rows each of which includes two or more of the coding units, and when the normal slice starts at a position other than a beginning of a first row, a second row immediately following the first row does not start with the dependent slice, the wavefront parallel processing includes synchronizing context and probability information in the beginning of each of the slices, and in the synchronizing, a slice of a beginning of the second row does not refer to slice information of the normal slice.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU.
Esenlik I teaches each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik I into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 9,992,505 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 10,743,010 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik I”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses an image decoding apparatus for decoding a bitstream including a coded signal resulting from coding a plurality of slices into which an image is partitioned and each of which includes a plurality of coding units, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program causing the processor to execute operations including: decoding the plurality of slices included in the coded signal by a wavefront parallel processing, wherein each of the plurality of slices is either a normal slice having, in a slice header, information used for another slice or a dependent slice which is decoded using information included in a slice header of another slice, the image includes a plurality of rows each of which includes two or more of the coding units, and when the normal slice starts at a position other than a beginning of a first row, a second row immediately following the first row does not start with the dependent slice, the wavefront parallel processing includes synchronizing context and probability information in the beginning of each of the slices, and in the synchronizing, a slice of a beginning of the second row does not refer to slice information of the normal slice.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU.
Esenlik I teaches each of the plurality of slices contains at least one LCU (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik I into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 10,743,010 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 9,693,067 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik II”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses An image decoding method comprising: receiving a plurality of slices of an image, wherein the plurality of slices includes one or more normal slices and one or more dependent slices, wherein a normal slice has a slice header that includes information useable for decoding any subsequent dependent slice, and the image including one or more rows of largest coding units (LCUs); decoding a first normal slice in a first row of LCUs; when the first normal slice in the first row of LCUs starts at a position other than a beginning of the first row of LCUs; decoding all subsequent dependent slices which use information included in the slice header of the first normal slice, wherein the subsequent dependent slices which use information included in the slice header of the first normal slice are entirely included within the first row of LCUs; and decoding a second normal slice, wherein the second normal slice is at the beginning of a second row of LCUs immediately following the first row of LCUs, and further wherein the second normal slice is different from the first normal slice.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs.
Esenlik II teaches the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik II into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 11,212,544 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 9,693,067 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik II”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses A method of encoding an image, the image comprising a first row of largest coding units (LCUs) and a second row of LCUs that is after the first row of LCUs, the method comprising: determining that wavefront parallel processing is enabled; and partitioning the first row of LCUs and the second row of LCUs so as to comprise a normal slice and a group of dependent slices, the normal slice being at a position on the first row of LCUs that is not at the beginning of the first row of LCUs, the group of dependent slices consisting of every dependent slice that uses information from the normal slice for encoding, wherein, based on the determination that wavefront parallel processing is enabled and the normal slice being at a position that is other than the beginning of the first row of LCUs, the partitioning of the first row of LCUs and the second row of LCUs is performed such that an entirety of the group of dependent slices is included in the first row of LCUs.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs.
Esenlik II teaches the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik II into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 11,863,772 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 9,693,067 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik II”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a method of encoding an image, the image comprising a plurality of rows of largest coding units (LCUs), the method comprising: determining whether or not wavefront parallel processing is enabled; partitioning the plurality of rows of LCUs to comprise a normal slice and a group of dependent slices, whereby, the normal slice comprises at least one LCU, and, the group of dependent slices comprises at least one LCU and consists of every dependent slice that uses information from a slice header of the normal slice for encoding; restricting, based on the determination that wavefront parallel processing is enabled, the partitioning of the plurality of rows of LCUs such that a last LCU in the group of dependent slices belongs in a same row as a first LCU of the normal slice when the first LCU of the normal slice is not a first LCU of the row.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs.
Esenlik II teaches the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik II into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,368,870 B2 (reference patent) in view of Esenlik et al. (US 9,693,067 B2) (hereinafter “Esenlik II”).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a method of encoding an image, the image comprising a plurality of rows of largest coding units (LCUs), the method comprising: determining whether or not wavefront parallel processing is enabled; partitioning the plurality of rows of LCUs to comprise a normal slice and a group of dependent slices, whereby, the normal slice comprises at least one LCU, and, the group of dependent slices comprises at least one LCU and consists of every dependent slice that uses information from a slice header of the normal slice for encoding; and restricting, based on the determination that wavefront parallel processing is enabled, the partitioning of the plurality of rows of LCUs such that a last LCU in the group of dependent slices belongs in a same row as a first LCU of the normal slice when the first LCU of the normal slice is not a first LCU of the row, wherein the wavefront parallel processing includes synchronizing context and probability information in a beginning of each of the slices, and in the synchronizing, a slice of a beginning of a second row does not refer to slice information of the normal slice in a first row.
However, claims of reference patent do not disclose the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs.
Esenlik II teaches the wavefront parallel processing for each of the plurality of slices begins with synchronizing context and probability information using a result of context adaptive arithmetic decoding of a second LCU in an immediately preceding row of LCUs (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings from Esenlik II into the reference patent because such incorporation would allow more efficient parallel processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights