DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1, 6, and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1, 6, and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues 1) it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of the cited prior art reference, Hannuksela and Guo, with teachings of cited prior art reference Yoo since Guo is directed toward a single layer coding architecture focused on intra prediction (SDIP) while Hannuksela and Yoo are directed toward multi-layer scalable coding and single layer coding (see remarks pg. 7, para. 1 and 2). The applicant further argues: 2) the invention disclosed by Guo would become inoperable or destroy its intended function (see remarks pg. 7, para. 3).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. 1) The examiner contends Guo is directed toward both intra and inter prediction ([0043], [0070], [0087], [0093], [0120], [0142], blocks are encoded in inter or intra mode)(in other words, while Guo discusses signaling whether or not a block is encoded using short distance intra prediction (SDIP) ([0006], [0035], [0037]), Guo does not limit the type of prediction to only include SDIP; and, as known in the art, intra prediction and inter prediction processes often include commonly used processes which are applicable to both the intra/inter prediction processes, such as image resizing (padding, resampling, upscaling/downscaling, varying the aspect ratio) for motion prediction and signaling syntaxes regarding said processes. In this instance, while Guo discusses performing motion estimation/compensation ([0043], [0087], [0093], [0120]), Guo does not account for unavailable reference samples in the reference image when a vector of the current image points outside of the reference image, which could possibly lead to image degradation during encoding/decoding. Hannuksela remedies this issue by padding unavailable reference pixel locations ([0223], [0229]) and signaling padding parameters for both and x and y directions using the variables ScaleFactorX and ScaleFactorY. 2) While Guo is directed toward single layer prediction and Hannuksela is directed toward multi-layer prediction, incorporating the padding process taught by Hannuksela into the prediction process taught by Guo would not render the invention taught by Guo inoperable, but would in fact increase the encoding/decoding quality and image display by accounting for unavailable reference samples for prediction.
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, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, respectively, of copending Application No. 19/255,802 (reference application). Any differences between the instant application’s claims and the co-pending application’s claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, respectively, of copending Application No. 19/255,809 (reference application). Any differences between the instant application’s claims and the co-pending application’s claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, respectively, of copending Application No. 19/255,839 (reference application). Any differences between the instant application’s claims and the co-pending application’s claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (Yoo) (US 2017/0155922) in view of Guo et al. (Guo) (US 2013/0163664) in view of Hannuksela (US 2019/0082184).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses a method of decoding an image with a decoding apparatus, comprising:
receiving a bitstream in which the image is encoded (FIG. 12, an encoded bitstream BISTREAM is received by decoder 500);
determining a current block included in the image ([0138], a current block is input);
obtaining information on a residual block for the current block from the bitstream, the information on the residual block includes a second flag indicating whether to divide the current block asymmetrically ([0266], Table 1, splitting of a transform block (i.e. a transformed residual block) asymmetrically is signaled for splitting the current block into transform blocks);
generating a residual block for the current block based on the information on the residual block (FIG. 20, [0165], [0266], splitting of the transform block is performed based on the signaled transform split type);
generating a prediction block for the current block ([0215], a predictor (prediction) block is generated);
reconstructing the current block based on the residual block and the prediction block to generate a reconstructed image ([0215], the residual is added to a prediction block to generate a reconstructed block); and
performing an image processing on the reconstructed image based on image processing information included in the bitstream ([0069], [0094], padding of the current blocks is performed using information indicating whether or not padding is performed),
wherein the residual block is generated by performing inverse-quantization ([0215], inverse quantization is performed);
wherein the image processing comprises resizing the reconstructed image ([0069], [0094], padding of the current image is performed), and
wherein, in case the current block is divided asymmetrically, a first sub-block having a ¼ size of the current block is obtained, the first sub-block belonging to the one or more sub-blocks (FIG. 20, block 1322-1338).
Yoo is silent about the information on the residual block includes at least one of a first flag indicating whether to divide the current block to obtain one or more sub-blocks, a second flag indicating whether to divide the current block asymmetrically and a third flag indicating whether a division direction for the current block is a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; and resizing the reconstructed image based on resizing information included in the image processing information, the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height.
Guo from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the information on the residual block ([0028], [0067], transform unit splitting is performed) includes at least one of a first flag indicating whether to divide the current block to obtain one or more sub-blocks ([0067], a split flag indicates whether or not a block is split in transform units TU), a second flag indicating whether to divide the current block asymmetrically ([0070], [0072], [0142], asymmetric split flags for inter prediction are signaled) and a flag indicating whether a division direction for the current block is a horizontal direction or a vertical direction ([0070], an indication of left right up or down direction partitioning). The examiner notes while Guo does not explicitly disclose a third, separate flag for signaling a split direction, in view of In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the process of making parts of an invention separable (in this case, having distinct flags for signaling both split type and direction) is not sufficient for distinguishing over the prior art and would require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients (see MPEP 2144.04 section V.B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo into the teachings of Yoo for efficient image encoding/decoding.
Yoo in view of Guo is silent about resizing the reconstructed image based on resizing information included in the image processing information, the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height.
Hannuksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses resizing the reconstructed image ([0223], reconstructed images are padded, [0306], resampling involving padding for reference images is performed) based on resizing information included in the image processing information ([0320], the variables ScaleFactorX and ScaleFactorY are indicated in a bitstream for padding a reference image), the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height ([0320], the image is resized according to a scale factor(s) which is used for resampling (i.e. padding); a scale factor greater than or less than one is able to be used to determine the ratio of the resized image to the size of the original image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of Yoo in view of Guo for efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo discloses wherein the resizing is performed based on a flag indicating whether to enable the resizing indicating enable ([0069], [0094], padding of the current blocks is performed using information indicating whether or not padding is performed).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo discloses wherein the resizing is either increasing or decreasing the width or height of the reconstructed image (FIG. 5, the image size is increased by padding).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo discloses a method of encoding an image with an encoding apparatus, comprising:
determining a current block included in the image ([0138], a current block is input);
generating a prediction block for the current block ([0215], a predictor (prediction) block is generated);
generating a residual block for the current block based on the prediction block ([0215], a residual is generated by subtracting a current block from a predictor block);
encoding information on the residual block into a bitstream, the information on the residual block includes a second flag indicating whether to divide the current block asymmetrically ([0266], Table 1, splitting of a transform block (i.e. a transformed residual block) asymmetrically is signaled for splitting the current block into transform blocks); and
encoding image processing information into the bitstream ([0069], [0094], padding of the current blocks is performed using information indicating whether or not padding is performed),
wherein the image processing information is used for performing an image processing on a reconstructed image ([0069], [0094], padding of the current blocks is performed using information indicating whether or not padding is performed), the reconstructed image is generated by reconstructing the current block based on the residual block ([0215], the residual is added to a prediction block to generate a reconstructed block),
wherein the residual block is encoded by performing quantization ([0215], quantization is performed),
wherein the image processing comprises resizing the reconstructed image ([0069], [0094], padding of the current image is performed), and
wherein, in case the current block is divided asymmetrically, a first sub-block having a ¼ size of the current block is obtained, the first sub-block belonging to the one or more sub-blocks (FIG. 20, block 1322-1338).
Yoo is silent about the information on the residual block includes at least one of a first flag indicating whether to divide the current block to obtain one or more sub-blocks, a second flag indicating whether to divide the current block asymmetrically and a third flag indicating whether a division direction for the current block is a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; and resizing the reconstructed image based on resizing information included in the image processing information, the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height.
Guo from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the information on the residual block ([0028], [0067], transform unit splitting is performed) includes at least one of a first flag indicating whether to divide the current block to obtain one or more sub-blocks ([0067], a split flag indicates whether or not a block is split in transform units TU), a second flag indicating whether to divide the current block asymmetrically ([0070], [0072], [0142], asymmetric split flags for inter prediction are signaled) and a flag indicating whether a division direction for the current block is a horizontal direction or a vertical direction ([0070], an indication of left right up or down direction partitioning). The examiner notes while Guo does not explicitly disclose a third, separate flag for signaling a split direction, in view of In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the process of making parts of an invention separable (in this case, having distinct flags for signaling both split type and direction) is not sufficient for distinguishing over the prior art and would require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients (see MPEP 2144.04 section V.B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo into the teachings of Yoo for efficient image encoding/decoding.
Yoo in view of Guo is silent about resizing the reconstructed image based on resizing information included in the image processing information, the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height.
Hannuksela from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses resizing the reconstructed image ([0223], reconstructed images are padded, [0306], resampling involving padding for reference images is performed) based on resizing information included in the image processing information ([0320], the variables ScaleFactorX and ScaleFactorY are indicated in a bitstream for padding a reference image), the resizing information comprises a scaling factor which represents a ratio between a size of the reconstructed image and a size of a resized image obtained by the resizing, the size being a width or a height ([0320], the image is resized according to a scale factor(s) which is used for resampling (i.e. padding); a scale factor greater than or less than one is able to be used to determine the ratio of the resized image to the size of the original image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of Yoo in view of Guo for efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6. Yoo further discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream which is generated by a method of encoding an image and transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 12, an encoded bitstream BISTREAM is received by decoder 500).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights