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 .
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.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,757,406 in view of Mukherjee et al. (US 2017/0048553 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Mukherjee”).
Claim 4 of Instant Application
A video signal decoding method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block;
obtaining a reference sample based on neighboring samples of the current block;
obtaining a first prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and the intra prediction mode;
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted filtering based on the reference sample and the first prediction sample;
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample; and
filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block,
wherein whether to performing the weighted filtering is determined based on the intra prediction mode.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,757,406
A video signal decoding method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block;
obtaining a reference sample based on a neighboring sample of the current block;
obtaining a first prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and the intra prediction mode; and
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted filtering based on the reference sample and the first prediction sample,
wherein whether to performing the weighted filtering is determined based on the intra prediction mode.
Table 1.
Claim 1 of U.S, Patent No. 10,757,406 discloses many of the same or similar limitations as claim 4 as shown in Table 1.
Claim 1 of U.S, Patent No. 10,757,406 does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample; and
filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block.
However, Mukherjee discloses:
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample (Mukherjee: paragraph [0051], disclosing that a reconstruction unit may add a prediction block generated by intra/inter prediction to a derivative residual block to create a reconstructed block); and
filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block (Mukherjee: paragraph [0051], disclosing that filtering can be applied to the reconstructed block).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the filtering of Mukherjee with the decoding method of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,757,406.
One would have been motivated to modify Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,757,406 in this manner in order to reduce discontinuities between blocks when performing high-resolution coding (Mukherjee: paragraphs [0001] and [0024]-0026]).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,174 in view of Mukherjee.
Claim 4 of Instant Application
A video signal decoding method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block;
obtaining a reference sample based on neighboring samples of the current block;
obtaining a first prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and the intra prediction mode;
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted filtering based on the reference sample and the first prediction sample;
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample; and
filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block,
wherein whether to performing the weighted filtering is determined based on the intra prediction mode.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,174
A video signal decoding method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block;
obtaining a reference sample based on a neighboring sample of the current block;
obtaining a first prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and the intra prediction mode;
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted filtering based on the reference sample and the first prediction sample; and
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample,
wherein whether to performing the weighted filtering is determined based on the intra prediction mode.
Table 2.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,174 discloses many of the same limitations as claim 4 as shown in Table 2.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,174 does not explicitly disclose: filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block.
However, Mukherjee discloses: filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block (Mukherjee: paragraph [0051], disclosing that filtering can be applied to the reconstructed block).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the filtering of Mukherjee with the decoding method of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,174.
One would have been motivated to modify Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,174 in this manner in order to reduce discontinuities between blocks when performing high-resolution coding (Mukherjee: paragraphs [0001] and [0024]-0026]).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same or similar limitations, as shown in Table 3, below.
Claim 4 of Instant Application
A video signal decoding method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block;
obtaining a reference sample based on neighboring samples of the current block;
obtaining a first prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and the intra prediction mode;
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted filtering based on the reference sample and the first prediction sample;
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample; and
filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block,
wherein whether to performing the weighted filtering is determined based on the intra prediction mode.
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,845
A video signal decoding method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block;
obtaining a reference sample based on a neighboring sample of the current block;
obtaining a first prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and the intra prediction mode;
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted filtering based on the reference sample and the first prediction sample;
obtaining a reconstructed sample of the current block based on the second prediction sample; and
filtering the reconstructed sample of the current block,
wherein whether to performing the weighted filtering is determined based on the intra prediction mode,
wherein the obtaining the reference sample comprises filtering the neighboring sample of the current block, and
wherein whether to filter the neighboring sample of the current block is determined based on a width and a height of the current block.
Table 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Mukherjee, the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where whether to perform the weighted filtering is determined based on the inter prediction mode and where when the current block is less than or equal to a predetermined size, whether to filter the neighboring pixel for the current block is determined regardless of the intra prediction mode.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571)270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights