DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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 1–19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,257 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the novel feature of the available samples being less than 4 in either the top or left reference sample set is the novel feature in both sets of claims such that one skilled in the art would interpret the instant claims to be obvious in view of the reference patent.
Claims 1–19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,936 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the novel feature of the available samples being less than 4 in either the top or left reference sample set is the novel feature in both sets of claims such that one skilled in the art would interpret the instant claims to be obvious in view of the reference patent.
Claims 1–19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,537,939 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the novel feature of the available samples being less than 4 in either the top or left reference sample set is the novel feature in both sets of claims such that one skilled in the art would interpret the instant claims to be obvious in view of the reference patent.
Claims 1–19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1–19 of copending Application No. 19/236,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the novel feature of the available samples being less than 4 in either the top or left reference sample set is the novel feature in both sets of claims such that one skilled in the art would interpret the instant claims to be obvious in view of the reference patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Recommendation on Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes the feature Applicant avers as inventive in Applicant’s Specification is described in paragraphs [0114] and [0153]–[0155] of Applicant’s published Specification. In those paragraphs, Applicant explains that when the number of available reference samples is less than 4, e.g. 2, then a default linear parameter is chosen rather than padding the samples up to 4. It is not clear from Applicant’s claims that this particular feature is explicitly claimed. Examiner notes this is the second child case in the family and third application overall. To expedite prosecution and to perhaps achieve a stronger patent, Examiner recommends Applicant claim narrower subject matter to further draw a distinction over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 19 is drawn to a different category of invention than claim 7 and thus the CRM claim of claim 19 fails to further limit the scope of the method claim (claim 7) upon which it depends and/or does not include all the limitations of the parent claim. MPEP 2114 (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does,” citing Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “Algorithm description for Versatile Video Coding and Test Model 5 (VTM 5), JVET-N1002-v2, 14th Meeting: Geneva, CH, March 2019 (herein “Chen”) and Choi et al., “CE3: Reduced number of reference samples for CCLM parameter calculation (CE3-1.4.1 and CE3-1.4.2),” JVET-N0228, 14th Meeting: Geneva, CH, March 2019.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Chen and Choi teaches or suggests a method for a colour component prediction (Choi, Title: teaches the publication is drawn to cross component prediction), applied to decoder, comprising: determining a first reference sample set corresponding to a colour component to be predicted of a coding block in a video picture (The skilled artisan recognizes this as a feature of cross component prediction (CCP; also known as cross-component linear model (CCLM)); Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19) teaches selecting a set of reference samples); when a number of available samples in the first reference sample set is equal to 0, taking a preset component value as a prediction value corresponding to the colour component to be predicted (Choi, Section 6: teaches “If both numSampL and numSampT are equal to 0,” then “predSamples[x][y] = 1 << (BitDepthc – 1”; see original claim 5 wherein Applicant explains this is what Applicant means here); and when a number of the available samples in the first reference sample set is greater than or equal to 4, obtaining a second reference sample set based on the first reference sample set (Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches the reference samples are “at most four neighbouring samples” and teaches the four samples are selected based on position): when a number of available samples in the second reference sample set is equal to a preset number (Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches the reference samples are “at most four neighbouring samples” and teaches the four samples are selected based on position), determining a model parameter of a prediction model according to the second reference sample set, wherein the prediction model is used to implement a prediction processing of the colour component to be predicted to obtain a prediction value corresponding to the colour component to be predicted (Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches alpha and beta parameters of the linear model calculated based on the reference sample set; Examiner notes Choi’s teaching of CCLM also teaches this feature; Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches the prediction of the chroma component predc is based on the alpha and beta parameters; Examiner notes Choi’s teaching of CCLM also teaches this feature) wherein obtaining the second reference sample set based on the first reference sample set comprises: determining positions of samples based on sample positions corresponding to neighbouring reference samples in the first reference sample set; and determining, from the first reference sample set, available samples corresponding to the positions of the samples according to the determined positions of the samples, and determining the second reference sample set based on the determined available samples, wherein the number of the available samples in the second reference sample set is less than or equal to the preset number (Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches the reference samples are “at most four neighbouring samples” and teaches the four samples are selected based on position; Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches the limitation that of the larger set of available reference samples, four neighboring reference samples are chosen based on their positions).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Chen, with those of Choi, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to incorporate cross-component prediction such as CCLM would be led to their relevant teachings, because Chen is simply describing in prose what the pseudocode found in Choi is describing, and because such a combination is a mere combination of prior art constraints of the CCLM algorithm taught by the prior art and combined using known methods to produce the predictable result of a more constrained CCLM algorithm that reduces computational complexity. This rationale applies to all combinations of Chen and Choi used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the preset number is 4 (see treatment of claim 1); and wherein the determining the first reference sample set corresponding to the colour component to be predicted of the coding block in the video picture comprises: acquiring reference samples neighboring at least one side of the coding block, wherein the at least one side comprises a left side of the coding block and/or a top side of the coding block; and determining the first reference sample set corresponding to the colour component to be predicted based on the reference samples (Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches LM, LM-A, and LM-L modes which look to the above and/or left neighboring samples as reference samples).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the first reference sample set corresponding to the colour component to be predicted of the coding block in the video picture comprises: acquiring reference samples in a reference row and/or a reference column neighboring the coding block, wherein the reference row comprises a row neighboring a top side and a top-right side of the coding block, and the reference column comprises a column neighboring a left side and a bottom-left side of the coding block; and determining the first reference sample set corresponding to the colour component to be predicted based on the reference samples (Examiner notes the claim covers the scenarios depicted in Applicant’s Figs. 6B and 6C, wherein Fig. 6B shows a left column’s reference samples including H + W samples and wherein Fig. 6C shows a top row’s reference samples including W + H samples; Equivalently, Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches for the LM-L (left) mode H’ = H + W and for the LM-A (above) mode W’ = W + H).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the taking the preset component value as the prediction value corresponding to the colour component to be predicted comprises: determining the preset component value based on a bit depth of the video picture; wherein the preset component value is 1<<(BitDepth-1), and the BitDepth is a bit depth of the colour component to be predicted (Choi, Section 6: teaches “If both numSampL and numSampT are equal to 0,” then “predSamples[x][y] = 1 << (BitDepthc – 1”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: for each sample in the coding block, performing prediction value filling on the colour component to be predicted of each sample by using the preset component value (Choi, Section 6: teaches “If both numSampL and numSampT are equal to 0,” then “predSamples[x][y] = 1 << (BitDepthc – 1”; Examiner notes the prediction samples are iterated through [x][y] and the prediction samples are filled in those positions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein after obtaining the prediction model corresponding to the colour component to be predicted according to the model parameter, the method further comprises: performing a prediction processing on the colour component to be predicted of each sample in the coding block based on the prediction model, to obtain a prediction value corresponding to a colour component to be predicted of each sample (Chen, Section 3.3.2 (page 19): teaches the prediction of the chroma component predC is applied to each sample (i, j) in the coding block).
Claim 7 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Because the skilled artisan knows the encoding and decoding processes are reciprocal in nature, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Because the skilled artisan knows the encoding and decoding processes are reciprocal in nature, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 3, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Because the skilled artisan knows the encoding and decoding processes are reciprocal in nature, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 4, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Because the skilled artisan knows the encoding and decoding processes are reciprocal in nature, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Because the skilled artisan knows the encoding and decoding processes are reciprocal in nature, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Because the skilled artisan knows the encoding and decoding processes are reciprocal in nature, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 3, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 4, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to a CRM rather than the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al., “CE3-related: Reduced number of reference samples for CCLM parameter calculation,” JVET-M0219-v2, 13th Meeting, Marrakech, MA, January 2019. The publication teaches limiting a number of reference samples used in CCLM to 4 samples (Section 1 and Table 1).
Wang et al., “CE3-related: Modified linear model derivation for CCLM modes,” JVET-M0274, 13th Meeting, Marrakech, MA, January 2019. The publication teaches limiting a number of reference samples used in CCLM to 4 samples (Section 2).
Galpin (US 2021/0051342 A1) teaches that when sample sets are unavailable, the references are padded according to some default process for setting their values (¶ 0064).
Ahn (US 2021/0243457 A1) teaches when both top and left samples are not available, the reference sample is set to a default value (¶ 0239).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
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.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights