DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an application filed on 06/17/2025, in which claims 1-19 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025 and 04/13/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application and a copy has been placed of record in the file.
Claim interpretation
Claims 13 and 14’s recitation of a “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the decoding process is the operations to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the computer readable medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the encoding steps). The structure includes the encoded information, the decoder, and other information manipulated by the operation.
To be given patentable weight, the computer-readable medium (a storage medium) and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the storage medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 13 and 14 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,286. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,286. Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,286.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,847. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,847. Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,847.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2013/0039421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses: A video decoding method, comprising:
determining whether to apply a filtering using a filter for a prediction for a target block (see Fig. 6, step S204, and paragraph 69); and
performing the prediction for the target block using the filter in a case that it is determined to apply the filtering for the prediction (see Fig. 6, step S205, and paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses: The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein one of a plurality of interpolation filters is selected as the filter for an inter prediction for the target block (see Lee, paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses: The video decoding method of claim 2, wherein one of the plurality of the interpolation filters is selected as the filter based on a coding parameter for the target block (see Lee, paragraph 70), and
the coding parameter comprises at least one of a component of the target block, a size of the target block, and a mode for the inter prediction for the target block (see Lee, paragraph 71, filter is selected according to the size of the current block).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses: The video decoding method of claim 2, wherein the selected filter is used for an interpolation for a sub-sample for the target block (see Lee, paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses: The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein one of a plurality of interpolation filters is selected as the filter for an intra prediction for the target block (see Lee, paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses: The video decoding method of claim 5, wherein one of the plurality of the interpolation filters is selected as the filter based on a coding parameter for the target block (see Lee, paragraph 70), and
the coding parameter comprises at least one of a component of the target block, a size of the target block, information about a partitioning for the target block, information indicating a type of a filter and an intra prediction direction for the intra prediction (see Lee, paragraph 71, filter is selected according to the size of the current block).
Regarding claims 7-12, claims 7-12 are drawn to methods having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 1-6 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, method claims 7-12 correspond to method claims 1-6 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the video encoding method of claim 7 (see Lee, paragraph 19).
Regarding claims 14-19, claims 14-19 are drawn to a computer readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 1-6 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, computer readable storage medium claims 14-19 correspond to apparatus and method claims 1-6 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights