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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 10/13/2025. The submission are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(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.
US Patent No. 11917137
Claim 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-11 and 16-20 of US Patent No. 11917137 (Application Number: 17/710174).
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical ( encoding vs decoding) , they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claim 2 of the US Patent No. 11917137. That is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of US Patent No. 11917137.
Regarding Claims 2 -7:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 2-7 of the instant application are recited in claims 2-7 of the US Patent No. 11917137. That is, each of claims 2-7 of the instant application is anticipated by claims 2-7 of US Patent No. 11917137.
Regarding Claims 8-14:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 8-14 of the instant application are recited in claims 8-14 of the US Patent No. 11917137. That is, each of claims 8-14 of the instant application is anticipated by claims 8-14 of US Patent No. 11917137.
Regarding Claims 15-20:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 15-20 of the instant application are recited in claims 15-20 of the US Patent No. 11917137. That is, each of claims 15-20 of the instant application is anticipated by claims 15-20 of US Patent No. 11917137.
US Patent No. 10819977
Claim 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 10819977 (Application Number: 16/240388).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical ( encoding vs decoding) , they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1-20 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claims 1-14 of the US Patent No. 10819977. That is, claim 1-20 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1-14 of US Patent No. 10819977.
US Patent No. 11356661
Claim 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11356661 (Application Number: 17/009434).
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 13-15:
Claims 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11356661 (Application Number: 17/009434) in view of Chang (US 20190082194, hereinafter Chang).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application differs from claims 1 and 8 of the US Patent No. 11356661 in that the instant application includes the one or more most probable modes are included in the most probable mode list, a planar mode is absent from the most probable mode list and a DC mode is absent from the most probable mode list.
However, this is known in the art as evidenced by Chang , which is in the same field of endeavor, discloses the one or more most probable modes are included in the most probable mode list, a planar mode is absent from the most probable mode list and a DC mode is absent from the most probable mode list ([0047] When the intra prediction unit 22221 determines the MPM flag is different from zero and selects directional mode (excludes planar and DC modes) from the MPMs based on the MPM index; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag, an MPM index, and a non -MPM index; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aforementioned elements as taught by Chang in order to generate a smoothed sample for reconstructing an image frame including the block unit based on the reference samples (Chang, Abstract, [0045])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim/claims is/are directed to “storing instructions” and/or “storing bitstreams” but claim/claims does not have any steps related to “storing instructions” and “storing bitstreams”, therefore, the scope of the claim/claims are/is vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 is directed to a storage medium for storing a bitstream. In other words, storage medium merely stores the bitstream as an output of an encoding method.
The bitstream itself has no functional relationship with the storage medium and no processor is recited. Significantly, the bitstream being stored has no disclosed or claim-defined structure that differentiates the claimed data stream from any other data stream such as a digital music file stored on a memory stick.
Applicant is advised to change it, for example “… storing instruction to perform the video encoding method …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 20170347093, hereinafter Yu)
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 1 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium storing a video media bitstream encoded by an encoding method wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight.
Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Yu recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶0128).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20170347093, hereinafter Yu) in view of Chang (US 20190082194, hereinafter Chang).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu discloses an apparatus for video decoding, comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
determine a plurality of intra prediction modes for a zero reference line in a plurality of reference lines, the zero reference line being closest to a current block among the plurality of reference lines, the current block being predicted with intra prediction ([0083], intra sample prediction with one or more reference tiers (lines); [0086], increase in the number of mode directions with an increased number of reference lines; [0087] FIG. 8 reference row adjacent to the top and the reference column adjacent to the side – ranging from reference line zero to Nth reference line);
determine a length of a most probable mode (MPM) list based on a value of a reference line index of a current reference line ([0047] determine the MPM flag and select directional mode from the MPMs based on the MPM index; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag, an MPM index, and a non -MPM index; [0082]).
Yu does not explicitly disclose determine at least one MPM included in an MPM list for a non-zero reference line in the plurality of reference lines.
Chang teaches determine at least one MPM included in an MPM list for a non-zero reference line in the plurality of reference lines ([0050], FIG. 2, intra prediction unit 22221 selects the neighboring samples from the reference lines based on the directional mode based on the prediction indications using a most probable mode (MPM) flag ([0047]) and compares the reference candidates in a first one of the reference lines with the reference candidates in the other reference lines (includes the non-zero reference lines); [0053], FIG. 3, plurality of predictors based on the directional mode and the selected at least one reference line).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have setting one or more most probable modes for one of the non-zero reference lines as taught by Chang as above in order to generate a smoothed sample for reconstructing an image frame including the block unit based on the reference samples (Chang, Abstract, [0045])
Regarding Claim 11, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode the reference line index that is signaled in a video media bitstream before obtaining an MPM flag and an intra prediction mode ([0047] intra prediction determination of MPM flag; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag);
when the decoded reference line index indicates the zero reference line, decode the MPM flag that is signaled in the video media bitstream; and when the decoded reference line index indicates the non-zero reference line, derive the MPM flag to be true and obtain an MPM index of the current block, the MPM flag not being signaled ([0050], FIG. 2, intra prediction from the reference lines based on the directional mode based on the prediction indications using a most probable mode (MPM) flag ([0047]) and utilizing first one of the reference lines with the reference candidates in the other reference lines (includes the non-zero reference lines); [0053], FIG. 3). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the at least one MPM for the non-zero reference line is included in the MPM list of the non- zero reference line, and at least one of a planar mode and a DC mode is excluded from the MPM list of the non-zero reference line ([0047] When the intra prediction unit 22221 determines the MPM flag is different from zero and selects directional mode (excludes planar and DC modes) from the MPMs based on the MPM index). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the length of the MPM list of the current reference line having the value of the reference line index of 1 is different from the length of the MPM list of the current reference line having the value of the reference line index greater than 1 ([0047] determine the MPM flag and select directional mode from the MPMs based on the MPM index; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag, an MPM index, and a non -MPM index; [0082]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 14, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the length of the MPM list of the current reference line having the value of the reference line index greater than 1 is one less than the length of the MPM list for the current reference line having the value of the reference line index of 1 ([0047] determine the MPM flag and select directional mode from the MPMs based on the MPM index; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag, an MPM index, and a non -MPM index; [0082]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine the length of the MPM list to be one or four when the reference line index indicates that the current reference line is the non-zero reference line; and determine the length of the MPM list to be three or six when the reference line index indicates that the current reference line is the zero reference line ([0047] determine the MPM flag and select directional mode from the MPMs based on the MPM index; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag, an MPM index, and a non -MPM index; [0082]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: when the reference line index indicates that the current reference line is the non-zero reference line, determine the length of the MPM list of the current reference line is five ([0047] determine the MPM flag and select directional mode from the MPMs based on the MPM index; [0061] prediction indications including MPM flag, an MPM index, and a non -MPM index; [0082]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Yu discloses wherein the non-zero reference line is a line extending along the current block and is further away from the current block than the zero reference line ([0087] FIG. 8 reference row adjacent to the top and the reference column adjacent to the side – ranging from reference line zero to Nth reference line).
Regarding Claim 18, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the MPM list is classified into a plurality of subsets having different numbers of elements from a lowest level to a highest level, and the at least one MPM is included in the subset of the lowest level line ([0047], FIG. 2, intra prediction with samples from the reference lines based on the directional mode based on the prediction indications using a most probable mode (MPM) flag; [0052], compares the reference candidates in a first one of the reference lines with the reference candidates in the other reference lines (includes the non-zero reference lines); [0053], FIG. 3; [0061]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the MPM list is classified into a plurality of subsets having different numbers of elements from a lowest level to a highest level, and the at least one MPM is included in one or more of the plurality of subsets line ([0047], FIG. 2, intra prediction with samples from the reference lines based on the directional mode based on the prediction indications using a most probable mode (MPM) flag; [0052], compares the reference candidates in a first one of the reference lines with the reference candidates in the other reference lines (includes the non-zero reference lines); [0053], FIG. 3; [0061]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 20, Yu in view of Chang discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the at least one MPM includes only one or more levels of respective MPMs allowed for the non-zero reference line ([0047], FIG. 2, intra prediction with samples from the reference lines based on the directional mode based on the prediction indications using a most probable mode (MPM) flag; [0052], compares the reference candidates in a first one of the reference lines with the reference candidates in the other reference lines (includes the non-zero reference lines); [0053], FIG. 3; [0061]). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 10.
Regarding Claims 1-6, computer readable medium claims 1-6 of using the apparatus claimed in claims 10-16, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above. (See also the 102 rejection above)
Regarding Claims 7-10, Encoding method claims 7-9 of using the apparatus claimed in claims 10-13, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, DAVID CZEKAJ can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights