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 .
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, 10-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-45 of U.S. Patent No. 12413760 (18726922). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of “parsing a code stream to obtain a first syntax element, wherein the first syntax element comprises an index of a target prediction mode of a to-be-decoded unit, determining the target prediction mode from an index table based on the index of the target prediction mode, wherein the index table comprises correspondences between indexes of multiple prediction modes and the multiple prediction modes.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120177118 A1-Karczewicz et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kar”).
Regarding claim 1, Kar discloses an image decoding method (Fig. 8), comprising:
parsing a code stream to obtain a first syntax element ([0038], wherein decoder may receive data, as well as a codeword indicative of an intra-prediction mode to use to decode. The information that is indicative is interpreted as the syntax information; [0046], wherein transmitting syntax data to the decoder), wherein the first syntax element comprises an index of a target prediction mode of a to-be-decoded unit ([0046], wherein syntax data representative of intra-prediction modes) ;
determining the target prediction mode from an index table based on the index of the target prediction mode (Table 5 shows target prediction modes that are based on the index mode), wherein the index table comprises correspondences between indexes of multiple prediction modes and the multiple prediction modes (Table 5); and
reconstructing the to-be-decoded unit based on at least the target prediction mode to obtain a reconstructed block ([0094] and [0182], reconstruct).
Regarding claim 2, Kar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the indexes of the multiple prediction modes are generated in a binary tree manner (table 4 shows a binary structure; [0106]).
Regarding claim 3, Kar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the multiple prediction modes comprise an original value mode and other prediction modes (table 5); and a code word length of an index of the original value mode is greater than or equal to a code word length of an index of one or more of the other prediction modes ([0114-0117]).
Regarding claim 4, Kar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the multiple prediction modes comprise an original value mode and other prediction modes, and the other prediction modes comprise at least one of: a point prediction mode, an intra-frame prediction mode, or a block copy mode ([0183], intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 5, Kar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the multiple prediction modes comprise an original value mode, a point prediction mode, an intra-frame prediction mode, and an intra-frame block copy mode; wherein the indexes of the multiple prediction modes are generated in a binary tree manner, and generation rules of the indexes of the multiple prediction modes comprise: setting 1 as highest flag bits of indexes of the original value mode and the intra-frame prediction mode; respectively setting 1, 011, 010, 0011, 0010, 00001, and 00000 as remaining flag bits of different intra prediction modes; and setting 0001 as remaining flag bits of the original value mode (table 4, [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Kar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the multiple prediction modes comprise an original value mode and other prediction modes, and the other prediction modes comprise at least one of: a point prediction mode based on normal residual coding, an intra-frame prediction mode based on normal residual coding, or a block copy mode based on normal residual coding ([0183]).
Regarding claim 7, Kar discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein reconstructing the to-be-decoded unit based on at least the target prediction mode to obtain the reconstructed block comprises: in response to determining that the target prediction mode is the point prediction mode based on normal residual coding, the intra-frame prediction mode based on normal residual coding, or the block copy mode based on normal residual coding ([0183]), parsing a residual quantization related value of the to-be-decoded unit to obtain a residual block of the to-be-decoded unit ([0075]), and reconstructing the to-be-decoded unit based on the target prediction mode and the residual block to obtain the reconstructed block ([0128]).
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 18 (encoding performs the opposite of decoding).
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 20.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120177118 A1-Karczewicz et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kar”), in view of Us 20190238832 A1-Jun et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Jun”)
Regarding claim 8, Kar discloses the method according to claim 7 (see claim 7),
Kar fails to disclose wherein each row of pixels in the to-be-decoded unit are determined as one prediction group, and a residual block in the prediction group is divided into at least one residual sub-block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jun discloses wherein each row of pixels in the to-be-decoded unit are determined as one prediction group (Fig. 8), and a residual block in the prediction group is divided into at least one residual sub-block ([0065], wherein residual data for each block is interpreted as sub).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kar to disclose wherein each row of pixels in the to-be-decoded unit are determined as one prediction group, and a residual block in the prediction group is divided into at least one residual sub-block as taught by Jun, to improve operational speed within the hardware ([0167]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under Double patent, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights