DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Interview
The Examiner and the SPE attempted to contact the Applicant’s representative by telephone; however, the applicant was unavailable, and a voicemail message was left on April 27, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2025.The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification coop
The specification has not been reviewed in detail to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's attention is directed to the specification, and applicant is requested to make any necessary corrections of which applicant is aware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a video media bitstream that is encoded by an encoding method…”
The claimed bitstream does not impart functionality to a computer or computing device, and is therefore considered nonfunctional descriptive material. Such nonfunctional descriptive material, in the absence of a functional relationship with a computer-readable medium, does not constitute a statutory process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
A computer-readable storage medium (CRM) and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship to be given a patentable weight. A functional relationship exists where the descriptive material performs a function with respect to the medium. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A).
When a computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. See MPEP §2111.05(II).
Here, the computer-readable medium merely storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and medium. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention and therefore non-statutory.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a video media bitstream generated by an image encoding method.
The “encoded by an encoding method” language is interpreted as product-by-process limitation., where the product is the bitstream and the process is the encoding method steps used to generate the bitstream.
MPEP §2113 explains that “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but rather to the structure implied by those steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the recording medium storing the bitstream (i.e., the structure implied by the encoding method).
Such claims are not limited by the recited process, but by the structure of the resulting product. Accordingly, the claim is directed to a storge medium storing data (i.e., a bitstream).
Double Patenting
The Obviousness 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 non-statutory 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 Langi, 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 CPR l.32l(c) or l.32l(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory 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 CPR l.32l(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory 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. l. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.11 l(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CPR 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, to refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatented over claims 1-20of U.S, US Patent US12,355,951B2.
Although the claims of the instant application are not identical, to those of the referenced patent, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. The difference between the claim sets are merely in terminology, as illustrated in the claim comparison table below, and do not result in any patentable distinction.
Accordingly, the instant claims are considered to be an obvious variation of the claims of the cited patent.
To overcome this rejection, a terminal disclaimer must be filed. The terminal disclaimer must disclaim any term of the instant application that would extends beyond the term of the referenced patent and must include the required common ownership and enforceable provisions under C.F.R. § 1.321.
The following table provides an exemplary comparison between representative claims, and shows that the difference are merely in wording and do not constitute a patentable distinction.
19/248,303
(Instant Application)
17/982,975
(US Patent US12,355,951B2)
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
CLAIMS
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a video media bitstream that is encoded by an encoding method, the encoding method comprising:
determining a first prediction mode for a first color component associated with a current block;
when the first prediction mode for the first color component associated with the current block is determined as one of (i) an intra prediction mode, (ii) an inter prediction mode, or (iii) a combined intra-inter prediction mode, determining a second prediction mode for a second color component associated with the current block based on the first prediction mode being determined from (i), (ii), or (iii), wherein when the first prediction mode for the first color component is the inter prediction mode, the second prediction mode for the second color component is determined based on a template matching (TM) cost of a template of the second color component, the template including adjacent samples of the second color component; and
encoding the current block into the video media bitstream, the first color component of the current block being encoded with the first prediction mode and the second color component of the current block being encoded with the second prediction mode.
2. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the inter prediction mode includes one of an inter prediction mode without a motion vector difference, an inter prediction mode with a motion vector difference, and an inter prediction mode with a motion vector displacement.
3. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein: the first color component is a luma component and the second color component is a chroma component.
4. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein: the first color component is one of a red component, a green component, and a blue component, and the second color component is another one of the red component, the green component, and the blue component.
5. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the encoding method further comprises:
signaling prediction mode information into the video media bitstream, the prediction mode information indicating whether the second prediction mode is the intra prediction mode when the first color component is determined as the one of (i) the intra prediction mode, (ii) the inter prediction mode, and (iii) the combined intra-inter prediction mode.
6. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the encoding method further comprises:
signaling prediction mode information into the video media bitstream, the prediction mode information indicating whether the second prediction mode is a cross-component prediction mode when the first color component is determined as the one of (i) the intra prediction mode, (ii) the inter prediction mode, (iii) the combined intra-inter prediction mode.
7. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 6,
wherein the cross- component prediction mode includes one of a cross-component linear mode (CCLM), a chroma from luma mode (CfL), a multi-model CCLM mode, a multiple filter CCLM mode, and a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM).
8. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2,
wherein: the inter prediction mode without the motion vector difference includes one of a merge mode and a near mode, the inter prediction mode with the motion vector difference includes one of an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode and a new motion vector (NEWIMV) mode, and the inter prediction mode with the motion vector displacement includes a merge motion vector difference (MMVD) mode.
12. A method of encoding, the method comprising:
determining a first prediction mode for a first color component associated with a current block;
when the first prediction mode for the first color component associated with the current block is determined as one of (i) an intra prediction mode, (ii) an inter prediction mode, or (iii) a combined intra-inter prediction mode, determining a second prediction mode for a second color component associated with the current block based on the first prediction mode being determined from (i), (ii), or (iii), wherein when the first prediction mode for the first color component is the inter prediction mode, the second prediction mode for the second color component is determined based on a template matching (TM) cost of a template of the second color component, the template including adjacent samples of the second color component; and
encoding the current block into a bitstream, the first color component of the current block being encoded with the first prediction mode and the second color component of the current block being encoded with the second prediction mode.
2. The method of claim 1,
wherein the inter prediction mode includes one of an inter prediction mode without a motion vector difference, an inter prediction mode with a motion vector difference, and an inter prediction mode with a motion vector displacement.
4. The method of claim 1,
wherein: the first color component is a luma component and the second color component is a chroma component.
5. The method of claim 1,
wherein: the first color component is one of a red component, a green component, and a blue component, and the second color component is another one of the red component, the green component, and the blue component.
17. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
signaling prediction mode information into the bitstream, the prediction mode information indicating whether the second prediction mode is the intra prediction mode when the first color component is determined as the one of (i) the intra prediction mode, (ii) the inter prediction mode, and (iii) the combined intra-inter prediction mode.
18. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
signaling prediction mode information into the bitstream, the prediction mode information indicating whether the second prediction mode is a cross-component prediction mode when the first color component is determined as the one of (i) the intra prediction mode, (ii) the inter prediction mode, (iii) the combined intra-inter prediction mode.
19. The method of claim 18,
wherein the cross-component prediction mode includes one of a cross-component linear mode (CCLM), a chroma from luma mode (CfL), a multi-model CCLM mode, a multiple filter CCLM mode, and a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM)
14. The method of claim 13,
wherein: the inter prediction mode without the motion vector difference includes one of a merge mode and a near mode, the inter prediction mode with the motion vector difference includes one of an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode and a new motion vector (NEWMV) mode, and the inter prediction mode with the motion vector displacement includes a merge motion vector difference (MMVD) mode.
Claims not specifically addressed in the table above include limitations that are substantially similar in scope and content. Accordingly, the same rational supporting the rejection applies to the remaining claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FRANCOIS et al (US-20150326863-A1) hereinafter “Francois”.
Regarding Claim 1 Francois
Francois discloses 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a video media bitstream that is encoded by an encoding method, the encoding method comprising: (Francois, Claim 38 “A computer-readable storage medium storing a program which, when executed by a computer or processor, causes the computer or processor to carry out a method of encoding a video signal,…” Further, Francois discloses [0027] “…the decoder 30 receives as an input a bitstream 210 corresponding to a video sequence 101 compressed by an encoder of the HEVC type…” This bitstream is generated by the encoding method.)
The remaining limitations directed to the encoding method are not given patentable weight, as explained in the §101 rejection and the claim interpretation section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Fr 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2481 /WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights