DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
2. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-4 have been submitted for examination and are pending.
Priority
3. This application is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/225,212, filed on Jul. 24, 2023, which is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/523,025, filed on Nov. 10, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,902,509, which is a Continuation Application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/336,219, filed on Mar. 25, 2019, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,202,063, which is a U.S. National Stage Application of International Application No. PCT/KR2017/010469, filed on Sep. 22, 2017, which claims the benefit under 35 USC 119(a) and 365(b) of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2016-0127874, filed on Oct. 4, 2016, in the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the entire disclosures of which are all incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2025, 07/18/2025, 08/18/2025, 10/27/2025, and 05/14/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected on are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 Application No. 18/225,212 (US Patent No. 12382,019 B2) in view of Lee et al. (KR- 10-2023-0050900A) (hereinafter Lee). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Please see further example below. Differences are bolded in the following comparison table.
Current application 19/257,287
Copending application 18/225,212
Claim 1
Claim 1
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining prediction mode information from a bitstream;
determining a prediction mode for a chroma block based on the prediction mode information; deriving a predicted block of the chroma block based on the prediction mode;
generating a reconstructed chroma block based on the predicted block of the chroma block, wherein the deriving the predicted block of the chroma block comprises:
deriving a first predicted block for the chroma block based on an intra prediction mode, wherein the intra prediction mode includes a DC mode; and
deriving a second predicted block for the chroma block based on a reconstructed luma block, wherein the reconstructed luma block includes reconstructed luma samples of a luma block related to the chroma block, wherein the second predicted block is derived based on a sampling process on the reconstructed luma samples of the reconstructed luma block,
wherein the sampling process is performed by selecting a specific sample among plural reconstructed luma samples related to a chroma sample, wherein the predicted block of the chroma block is derived based on the first predicted block and the second predicted block.
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining, from a bitstream, prediction mode information;
determining a prediction mode for a chroma block based on the prediction mode information;
deriving a reconstructed luma block for a luma block related to the chroma block; deriving a predicted block of the chroma block based on the prediction mode and the reconstructed luma block; and
generating a reconstructed chroma block based on the predicted block of the chroma block, wherein deriving the predicted block of the chroma block comprising: reconfiguring the reconstructed lima block;
deriving a first predicted block for the chroma block based on one of intra prediction modes, wherein the intra prediction modes include a DC mode; and
deriving a second predicted block for the chroma block based on the reconfigured reconstructed huma block, wherein the predicted block of the chroma block is derived based on the first predicted block and the second predicted block; wherein the reconfigured reconstructed luma block has the same size as the chroma block.
The conflict application discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of “wherein the sampling process is performed by selecting a specific sample among plural reconstructed luma samples related to a chroma sample, wherein the predicted block of the chroma block is derived based on the first predicted block and the second predicted block.”
However, Lee et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein the sampling process is performed by selecting a specific sample among plural reconstructed luma samples related to a chroma sample, wherein the predicted block of the chroma block is derived based on the first predicted block and the second predicted block (e.g., see paragraphs 0087, 0101, 0103, 0109: up and down samplings process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the conflict application to add the teachings of Lee as above, in order to provide provides an image encoding method and apparatus capable of improving image encoding / decoding efficiency (see paragraph 0006: Lee).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
7. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11902509 (U.S Patent Application No. 17/523,025).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although slightly different words are used within the claim language, however, they cover the same or similar scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and are also an obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
8. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11202063 (U.S Patent Application No. 16/336,219).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although slightly different words are used within the claim language, however, they cover the same or similar scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and are also an obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-9 will be allowable if Double Patenting Rejection is overcome by filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights