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 1-2 17-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of copending Applications and additionally the claims in the rejections listed below for similar mappings and rationales:
19260068
19260146
1. A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one list of cross component prediction (CCP) models for the current video block;
determining a target CCP model based on the at least one list of CCP models; and performing the conversion based on the target CCP model.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream.
18. An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one list of cross component prediction (CCP) models for the current video block; determine a target CCP model based on the at least one list of CCP models; and perform the conversion based on the target CCP model.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising:determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one list of cross component prediction (CCP) models for the current video block;determining a target CCP model based on the at least one list of CCP models; andperforming the conversion based on the target CCP model.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises: determining at least one list of cross component prediction (CCP) models for a current video block of the video;determining a target CCP model based on the at least one list of CCP models; andgenerating the bitstream based on the target CCP model.
1. A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block
based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates; determining a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; and performing the conversion based on the prediction.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream.
18. An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates;determine a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; andperform the conversion based on the prediction.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates; determining a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; andperforming the conversion based on the prediction.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises:determining at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for a current video block of the video based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates;determining a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; andgenerating the bitstream based on the prediction.
The limitations that are not addressed above and not explicitly disclosed, however Lim teaches what is mapped below in the 103 rejection
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce the overhead bit of signaling the filter coefficients (Sarwer 0125)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. US 2020/0413069
In regard to claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, the identified claim and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by
Lim, which discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (0706)
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. US 2020/0413069 in view of Sarwer et al. US 2022/0279176.
Lim discloses:
18. and under similar rationales 1, 19, 20, An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (0706), cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block (0121, 0548-50, 0553, 0683, 0686); determine a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model (0121, 0548-50, 0553, 0683, 0686); and perform the conversion based on the prediction (0121, 0548-50, 0553, 0683, 0686).
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sarwer teaches based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates (0125-8; 0239).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce the overhead bit of signaling the filter coefficients (Sarwer 0125)
2. The method of claim 1,
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sarwer teaches wherein the at least one target CCP model is associated with a target entry in the history table or a candidate in the list. (0125-8; 0239).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce the overhead bit of signaling the filter coefficients (Sarwer 0125)
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one target CCP model is applied to the current video block based on a type of the at least one target CCP model, wherein the type of the at least one target CCP model comprises at least one of: a cross-component linear model (CCLM), a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM), a plurality of types of gradient linear model (GLM) using a plurality of down-sampling filters, a plurality of types of GLM with luma using a plurality of down-sampling filters, a gradient and location based convolutional cross-component model (GL-CCCM), or a CCCM with non-down-sampled luma samples (00548-50).
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a luma sample of the current video block; and determining an input of the at least one target CCP model based on the luma sample and a luma sample value offset, wherein the luma sample is down-sampled (0526-7).
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the input of the at least one target CCP model is determined by adding the luma sample value offset to the luma sample, or subtracting the luma sample value from the luma sample, and/or wherein a type of the at least one target CCP model comprises at least one of: a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM), a gradient and location based convolutional cross-component model (GL-CCCM), a gradient linear model (GLM), or a CCCM with non-down-sampled luma samples (0121,0526-7, 0548-50, 0553, 0683, 0686).
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a reconstructed sample value of the current video block by modifying the prediction of the current video block, wherein the reconstructed sample value is determined by adding an offset to the prediction or subtracting the offset from the prediction, wherein the offset is determined based on at least one of: a luma sample of a template of the current video block, or a chroma sample of the template of the current video block, and/or wherein the template is determined based on reconstructed samples neighboring to the current video block (0121,0526-34, 0548-50, 0553, 0559, 0683, 0686).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein if reconstructed samples left to the current video block is available, the template comprises the reconstructed samples left to the current video block, or wherein if reconstructed samples above the current video block is available, the template comprises the reconstructed samples above the current video block, or wherein if reconstructed samples above or left to the current video block is available, the template comprises the reconstructed samples above or left to the current video block, and/or wherein corresponding luma samples of the template are down-sampled in an approach for down-sampling luma samples inside the current video block (0121,0526-34, 0548-50, 0553, 0559, 0683, 0686).
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one target CCP model comprises a plurality of models required by a CCP type, a plurality of offsets being determined for the plurality of models, wherein a respective offset of a model of the plurality of models is added or subtracted from a prediction value determined by the model, and/or wherein the plurality of models comprises two models (0121,0526-34, 0548-50, 0553, 0559, 0683, 0686).
12. The method of claim 1, wherein a CCP approach indicated by a type of the at least one target CCP model is applied to a template of the current video block (0121, 0548-50, 0553, 0683, 0686).
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Figs 1 & 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. US 2020/0413069 in view of Sarwer et al. US 2022/0279176 and further in view of Kim et al. US 2025/0150605.
Lim discloses:
4. The method of claim 1,
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kim teaches wherein the at least one target CCP model comprises one or more models with at least one threshold, the one or more models being based on the number of models and the at least one threshold of an entry in the history table or a candidate in the list (0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order for the table may be configured in the scheme in which the threshold used for the neighboring blocks of the current block is included in the table (Kim 0158)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. US 2020/0413069 in view of Sarwer et al. US 2022/0279176 and further in view of Zhao et al. US 12355951.
Lim discloses:
7. The method of claim 5,
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhao teaches wherein the luma sample is determined based on a type of CCP model, wherein an approach for determining the luma sample is same with a down-sampling approach required by a CCP mode corresponding to the type of CCP model (22:60-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce cross-component redundancy (Zhao 22:60-5)
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. US 2020/0413069 in view of Sarwer et al. US 2022/0279176 and further in view of Chen et al. US 2024/0022732.
Lim discloses:
13. The method of claim 12,
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen teaches wherein for a k-th sample of the template, k being 1 . . . M, M being the number of {Sk} and M being a positive integer, Sk=Rk−Pk is determined, where Rk denotes a reconstructed sample value of the k-th sample, and Pk denotes a prediction value with CCP of the k-th sample, wherein an average of {Sk} is determined, and D denotes the average (0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order multiple reference lines can be used to predict a sample in the current block (1501) using the intra prediction fusion with adaptive weights (Chen 0153)
15. The method of claim 13,
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen teaches wherein for a k-th sample of the template, k being 1 . . . M, M being the number of {Sk} and M being a positive integer, S.sup.i.sub.k=R.sup.i.sub.k−P.sup.i.sub.k is determined, where R.sup.i.sub.k denotes a reconstructed sample value of the k-th sample using model i, and P.sup.i.sub.k denotes a prediction value with CCP of the k-th sample using model i, wherein an average of {S.sup.i.sub.k} is determined, and D.sup.i denotes the average. (0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order multiple reference lines can be used to predict a sample in the current block (1501) using the intra prediction fusion with adaptive weights (Chen 0153)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14, 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights