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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12382053 B2 in view of Wang et al. (US 20130107973 A1). Claims 1 and 3 of US 12382053 B2 teach most limitations in claim 1.
Furthermore, Wang teaches prediction related information, deriving prediction samples based on the prediction related information, and generating reconstructed samples of the current picture based on the residual information and the prediction samples ([0102] The mode select unit 40 may select one of the coding modes, intra or inter, e.g., based on rate distortion results for each mode, and provides the resulting intra- or inter-predicted block (e.g., a prediction unit (PU)) to the summer 50 to generate residual block data and to the summer 62 to reconstruct the encoded block for use in a reference frame; [0005] A coded video block may be represented by prediction information that can be used to create or identify a predictive block, and a residual block of data indicative of differences between the block being coded and the predictive block. Both intra-coding and inter-coding may define several different prediction modes, which may define different block sizes and/or prediction techniques used in the coding. Additional types of syntax elements may also be included as part of encoded video data in order to control or define the coding techniques or parameters used in the coding process; figure 12, output of unit 80).
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)(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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadono et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0076237 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kadono discloses One or more memory or storage devices having stored thereon a program ([0247] recording a program implementing the steps of … method to a floppy disk or other computer-readable data recording medium; [0251]; [0257] The software for … can be stored to any computer-readable data recording medium (such as a CD-ROM disc, floppy disk, or hard disk drive)).
See MPEP 2111.05 (III), when determining the scope of the claim, “a bitstream” is not given patentable weight, because “a bitstream” is non-functional descriptive material. It is merely static data that imparts no function (unlike an executable computer program which performs a function). It does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Thus, the computer-readable data recording medium disclosed in Kadono meets claim 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20130107973 A1) in view of WANG’747 (US 20220345747 A1) and Bross et al. (Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8)).
Regarding claims 1-3. Wang discloses An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus (figure 12, [0118] FIG. 12 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a video decoder 30), comprising:
obtaining image information including subpicture-related information, prediction related information and residual information through a bitstream (figure 12, input encoded video, residual data of input of unit 80; [0030]; [0108] signal the selected transform partition in the encoded video bitstream; [0102] The mode select unit 40 may select one of the coding modes, intra or inter, e.g., based on rate distortion results for each mode, and provides the resulting intra- or inter-predicted block (e.g., a prediction unit (PU)) to the summer 50 to generate residual block data and to the summer 62 to reconstruct the encoded block for use in a reference frame; [0005] A coded video block may be represented by prediction information that can be used to create or identify a predictive block, and a residual block of data indicative of differences between the block being coded and the predictive block. Both intra-coding and inter-coding may define several different prediction modes, which may define different block sizes and/or prediction techniques used in the coding. Additional types of syntax elements may also be included as part of encoded video data in order to control or define the coding techniques or parameters used in the coding process);
dividing a current picture into at least one subpicture based on the subpicture-related information ([0030]);
deriving prediction samples based on the prediction related information ([0102] The mode select unit 40 may select one of the coding modes, intra or inter, e.g., based on rate distortion results for each mode, and provides the resulting intra- or inter-predicted block (e.g., a prediction unit (PU)) to the summer 50 to generate residual block data and to the summer 62 to reconstruct the encoded block for use in a reference frame);
generating reconstructed samples of the current picture based on the residual information and the prediction samples (figure 12, output of unit 80); and
generating modified reconstructed samples based on an in-loop filtering procedure for the reconstructed samples (figure 12, output decoded video, units 75, 77 and 79),
wherein the at least one subpicture includes one or more slices ([0030]),
wherein the one or more slices are included in one or more tiles ([0030] When partitioned into tiles, a slice can run in raster scan order between edges of a tile. A slice may exist entirely within a tile, and each tile may include multiple slices),
wherein the image information includes in-loop filtering-related information ([0037] a new syntax element, referred to in this disclosure as "tile_boundary_loop_filtering_idc," for controlling cross-tile-boundary loop filtering. Loop filtering operations generally include any of deblocking filtering, ALF, and SAO. In general, deblocking filtering is selectively applied at edges of blocks to reduce blockiness artifacts, ALF is applied based on pixel classifications, and SAO is used to modify direct current (DC) values; [0072] include in a coded bitstream a value for a syntax element indicating if loop filtering is enabled across tile boundaries),
wherein whether the in-loop filtering procedure for the reconstructed samples is performed across at least one of a boundary of the one or more tiles or a boundary of the one or more slices in the current picture is determined based on the in-loop filtering-related information ([0037] a new syntax element, referred to in this disclosure as "tile_boundary_loop_filtering_idc," for controlling cross-tile-boundary loop filtering. Loop filtering operations generally include any of deblocking filtering, ALF, and SAO. In general, deblocking filtering is selectively applied at edges of blocks to reduce blockiness artifacts, ALF is applied based on pixel classifications, and SAO is used to modify direct current (DC) values; [0072] include in a coded bitstream a value for a syntax element indicating if loop filtering is enabled across tile boundaries),
wherein the image information includes a picture parameter set (PPS) referred by the current picture and a sequence parameter set (SPS) referred by the current picture ([0038] a value may be signaled indicating whether loop filtering operations are allowed across tile boundaries, e.g., for one or more particular boundaries or for all tiles within a frame or within a sequence. Such values may be signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) or a picture parameter set (PPS)),
wherein the image information includes a tile boundary in-loop filtering available flag for the at least one subpicture in the current picture ([0038] a value may be signaled indicating whether loop filtering operations are allowed across tile boundaries, e.g., for one or more particular boundaries or for all tiles within a frame or within a sequence. Such values may be signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) or a picture parameter set (PPS); [0037] a new syntax element, referred to in this disclosure as "tile_boundary_loop_filtering_idc," for controlling cross-tile-boundary loop filtering. Loop filtering operations generally include any of deblocking filtering, ALF, and SAO. In general, deblocking filtering is selectively applied at edges of blocks to reduce blockiness artifacts, ALF is applied based on pixel classifications, and SAO is used to modify direct current (DC) values; [0072] include in a coded bitstream a value for a syntax element indicating if loop filtering is enabled across tile boundaries; [0030]; [0066] if any of the loop filters are applied at the slice level (including an entropy slice) or at the tile level, special handling may be beneficial at the slice and tile boundaries),
wherein, based on the tile boundary in-loop filtering available flag for the at least one subpicture, whether the in-loop filtering procedure for the reconstructed samples is performed across the boundary of the one or more tiles in at least one subpicture is determined ([0038] a value may be signaled indicating whether loop filtering operations are allowed across tile boundaries, e.g., for one or more particular boundaries or for all tiles within a frame or within a sequence. Such values may be signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) or a picture parameter set (PPS); [0037] a new syntax element, referred to in this disclosure as "tile_boundary_loop_filtering_idc," for controlling cross-tile-boundary loop filtering. Loop filtering operations generally include any of deblocking filtering, ALF, and SAO. In general, deblocking filtering is selectively applied at edges of blocks to reduce blockiness artifacts, ALF is applied based on pixel classifications, and SAO is used to modify direct current (DC) values; [0072] include in a coded bitstream a value for a syntax element indicating if loop filtering is enabled across tile boundaries; [0030]; [0066] if any of the loop filters are applied at the slice level (including an entropy slice) or at the tile level, special handling may be beneficial at the slice and tile boundaries),
WANG’747 discloses
at least one subpicture includes a rectangular slice (figure 3, [0082]; [0086]; [0078]);
wherein the image information includes a slice boundary in-loop filtering available flag for the one or more tiles in the current picture ([0094] loop_filter_across_slices_enabled_flag equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across slice boundaries in pictures; loop_filter_across_slice_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across slice boundaries in pictures), and
wherein, based on the slice boundary in-loop filtering available flag for the one or more tiles, whether the in-loop filtering procedure for the reconstructed samples is performed across the boundary of the one or more rectangular slices in the one or more tiles is determined ([0094] loop_filter_across_slices_enabled_flag equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across slice boundaries in pictures; loop_filter_across_slice_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across slice boundaries in pictures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Wang and WANG’747, to also include in the image information a slice boundary in-loop filtering available flag for the one or more rectangular slices in the current picture in the rectangular slice mode, determining whether the in-loop filtering procedure for the reconstructed samples is performed across the boundary of the one or more rectangular slices, in order to more efficiently and flexibly code the image.
Bross discloses
wherein the SPS includes a tile slice boundary in-loop filtering available flag (page 40, line 4, 7.3.2.3 Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[ i ]; page 23, figure 7, Figure 7 shows an example of subpicture partitioning of a picture, where a picture is partitioned into 18 tiles, 12 tiles on the left-hand side each covering one slice of 4 by 4 CTUs and 6 tiles on the right-hand side each covering 2 vertically-stacked slices of 2 by 2 CTUs, altogether resulting in 24 slices and 24 subpictures of varying dimensions (each slice is a subpicture)), and
wherein whether the in-loop filtering procedure for the reconstructed samples is performed across tile boundaries and slice boundaries in a subpicture is determined based on the tile slice boundary in-loop filtering available flag (page 101, 3rd last paragraph, loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[ i ] equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across the boundaries of the i-th subpicture in each coded picture in the CLVS. loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[ i ] equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across the boundaries of the i-th subpicture in each coded picture in the CLVS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Wang, WANG’747 and Bross, to include the flag, in order to more efficiently and flexibly code the image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-5pm.
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 V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on (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.
/XIAOLAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights