DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/249,928 filed on June 25, 2025 in which claims 21-40 are presented for examination. Claims 1-20 were canceled with a preliminary amendment filed on June 26, 2025.
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
2. The non-statutory 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 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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.
3. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,668 to Li et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, and 34 of the instant application and claims 1, 8 and 14 of Patent no. 12,375,668 are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 21, for example, claims: In a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: determining a color space for a given unit of a picture, including selecting, based on a signal in encoded data for the picture, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter ("QP") values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Representative claim 1 of Patent no. 12,375,668 calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of Patent no. 12,375,668 also call for a computer system comprising one or more processing units and memory wherein the computer system implements a video decoder configured to perform operations comprising: receiving encoded data, as part of a bitstream, for a picture of a video sequence; and decoding the encoded data to reconstruct the picture, including: determining a color space for a given unit of the picture, including selecting, based on a signal in the encoded data, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter (“QP”) values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Claims 22-40 of the instant application corresponds to claims 2-20 of Patent no. 12,375,668.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
4. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,943,440 to Li et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, and 34 of the instant application and claims 1, 8 and 14 of Patent no. 11,943,440 are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 21, for example, claims: In a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: determining a color space for a given unit of a picture, including selecting, based on a signal in encoded data for the picture, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter ("QP") values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Representative claim 1 of Patent no. 11,943,440 calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of Patent no. 11,943,440 also call for in a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: receiving encoded data, as part of a bitstream, for a picture of a video sequence; and decoding the encoded data to reconstruct the picture, including: determining a color space for a given unit of the picture, including selecting, based on a signal in the encoded data, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter (“QP”) values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Claims 22-40 of the instant application corresponds to claims 2-20 of Patent no. 11,943,440.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
5. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,778 to Li et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, and 34 of the instant application and claims 1, 8 and 15 of Patent no. 11,451,778 are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 21, for example, claims: In a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: determining a color space for a given unit of a picture, including selecting, based on a signal in encoded data for the picture, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter ("QP") values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Representative claim 1 of Patent no. 11,451,778 calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of Patent no. 11,451,778 also call for receiving encoded data, as part of a bitstream, for a picture of a video sequence; and decoding the encoded data to reconstruct the picture, including: determining a color space for a given unit of the picture, including selecting, based on a signal in the encoded data, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter (“QP”) values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Claims 22-33 correspond to claims 2-13; claims 34-40 correspond to claims 15-20.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
6. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,567,769 to Li et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, and 34 of the instant application and claims 1, 8 and 15 of Patent no. 10,567,769 are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 21, for example, claims: In a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: determining a color space for a given unit of a picture, including selecting, based on a signal in encoded data for the picture, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter ("QP") values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Representative claim 1 of Patent no. 10,567,769 calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of Patent no. 10,567,769 also call for encoding units of video to produce encoded data, including, when switching from a first color space to a second color space between two of the units, adjusting final quantization parameter ("QP") values or intermediate QP values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, wherein the first color space is RGB and the second color space is YCoCg, and wherein the per component color space adjustment factors adjust the final QP values or intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and outputting the encoded data as
part of a bitstream.
Claim 22 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of US Patent no. 10,567,769;
Claim 23 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of US Patent no. 10,567,769;
Claim 24 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of US Patent no. 10,567,769;
Claim 25 of the instant application correspond to claim 6 the US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 26 of the instant application correspond to claim 5 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 27 of the instant application is somewhat similar to claim 3 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 28 of the instant application correspond to claim 8 US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 29 of the instant application correspond to claim 9 US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 30 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 31 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 32 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 33 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 34 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 35 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 36 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 37 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 38 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of US Patent no. 10,567,769.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
7. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,116,937 to Li et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, and 34 of the instant application and claims 1, 10 and 16 of Patent no. 10,116,937 are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 21, for example, claims: In a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: determining a color space for a given unit of a picture, including selecting, based on a signal in encoded data for the picture, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter ("QP") values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Representative claim 1 of Patent no. 10,116,937 calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of Patent no. 10,116,937 also call for an image encoder or video encoder configured to perform operations comprising: encoding units of the image or video to produce encoded data, including, when switching from a first color space to a second color space between two of the units, adjusting final quantization parameter ("QP") values or intermediate QP values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, wherein the first color space is RGB and the second color space is YCoCg, and wherein the per component color space adjustment factors adjust the final QP values or intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by offsets of -5, -3 and -5 for Y, Co and Cg components, respectively; and outputting the encoded data as part of a bitstream.
Claim 22 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 23 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 24 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of US Patent no. 10,567,769;
Claim 25 of the instant application has limitations corresponding to the limitations of claim 1
US Patent no. 10,567,769.
Claim 26 of the instant application correspond to claim 5 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 27 of the instant application is somewhat similar to claim 3 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 28 of the instant application correspond to claim 10 US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 29 of the instant application correspond to claim 11 US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 30 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 31 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 32 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 33 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 34 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent no. 10,116,937;
Claim 35 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of US Patent no. 10,116,937.
Claim 36 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of US Patent no. 10,116,937.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
8. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,939,110 to Li et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, and 34 of the instant application and claims 1, 8 and 15 of Patent no. 10,939,110 are drawn to the same invention.
A close look at the instant application will show that claim 21, for example, claims: In a computer system that implements a video decoder, a method comprising: determining a color space for a given unit of a picture, including selecting, based on a signal in encoded data for the picture, between a first color space and a second color space, the first color space being RGB and the second color space being YCoCg, wherein the color space for the given unit is determined to be the second color space; adjusting intermediate quantization parameter ("QP") values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, the per component color space adjustment factors adjusting the intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors; and decoding the given unit based at least in part on the adjusted intermediate QP values.
Representative claim 1 of Patent no. 10,939,110 calls for similar limitations. In fact, claim 1 of Patent no. 10,939,110 also call for decoding the encoded data to reconstruct units of video, including, when switching to a first color space from a second color space between two of the units, adjusting final quantization parameter (“QP”) values or intermediate QP values for color components of the second color space according to per component color space adjustment factors, wherein the first color space is RGB and the second color space is YCoCg, and wherein the per component color space adjustment factors adjust the final QP values or intermediate QP values for the color components of the second color space by rule for Y, Co, and Cg components, respectively, the per component color space adjustment factors depending on the second color space without signaling of syntax elements that indicate the per component color space adjustment factors.
Claim 22 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of US Patent no. 10,939,110;
Claim 23 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of US Patent no. 10,939,110;
Claim 28 of the instant application correspond to claim 8 US Patent no. 10,939,110;
Claim 29 of the instant application correspond to claim 9 US Patent no. 10,939,110;
Claim 34 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of US Patent no. 10,939,110;
Claim 35 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent no. 10,939,110.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-33 and 35-40 are rejected by dependency to claims 21, 28 and 34, respectively.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshino (US Patent no. 7675660) teaches color adjustment method.
Stevens (US Patent no. 7209145) teaches color device profile having a buffered look up table).
Chan et al. (US Patent no. 6262812) teaches method and apparatus for object-oriented adjustment of color attributes in a perceptually uniform manner.
Nagae (US Patent no. 6198552) teaches color image information processing system, using color image information to which achromatic color information is appended, and input device and output device employed in same.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights