DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/15/2025. Claims 1-23 are pending for examination.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification coop
The specification has not been reviewed in detail to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's attention is directed to the specification, and applicant is requested to make any necessary corrections of which applicant is aware.
Claim interpretation
Claim 23 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program and a bitstream stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform following steps to generate the bitstream:”
The limitation “wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform following steps to generate the bitstream” language is construed, to the extent it defines the manner in which the bitstream is generated, as product-by-process limitation. where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites "Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps".
"To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a
functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated". MPEP $2111.05(I)(A).
Here, the computer-readable storage medium merely serves as support for storing the claimed bitstream and the claim does not recite a functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storge medium. Accordingly, the claimed bitstream, including any structure implied by the recited method steps used to generate the bitstream, constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and is not entitled to patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05(III).
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.
(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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al (US-20240129518-A1) hereinafter “Deng”.
Regarding Claim 23 Deng
Deng discloses 23. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program and a bitstream stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform following steps to generate the bitstream: (Deng, [0007] “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is provided. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores instructions that cause a processor to perform a method…”[0008] “….a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is provided. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus…”)
The remaining limitations, to the extent they recite the method steps used to generate the bitstream, are not accorded patentable weight for the reason set forth in the claim interpretation section above.
Double Patenting
The Obviousness 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 non-statutory 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 Langi, 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 CPR l.32l(c) or l.32l(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory 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 CPR l.32l(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory 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. l. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.11 l(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CPR 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, to refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatented over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/257, 821.
Although the claims of the instant application are not identical, to those of the referenced patent, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. The difference between the claims sets are merely in terminology, as illustrated in the claim comparison table below, and do not result in any patentable distinction.
Accordingly, the instant claims are considered to be an obvious variation of the claims of the cited patent.
To overcome this rejection, a terminal disclaimer must be filed. The terminal disclaimer must disclaim any term of the instant application that would extends beyond the term of the referenced patent and must include the required common ownership and enforceable provisions under C.F.R. § 1.321.
The following table provides an exemplary comparison between representative claims and shows that the difference are merely in wording and do not constitute a patentable distinction.
19/269,624
(Instant Application)
19/257, 821
(Copending Reference Application)
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
CLAIMS
Claim 1. A decoding method, applied to a decoder and comprising:
determining a first template of a current block, and determining a reference template and a reference block;
in response to the reference template meeting a first preset condition, performing first processing on an adjacent region of the reference template to determine a matching template, and
determining a model parameter according to the first template and the matching template;
performing filtering processing on the reference block according to the model parameter to determine a filtered reference block;
determining a prediction value of the current block according to the filtered reference block; and
determining a reconstructed value of the current block according to the prediction value of the current block.
Claim 22. An encoding method, applied to an encoder and comprising:
determining a first template of a current block, and determining a reference template and a reference block;
in response to the reference template meeting a first preset condition, performing first processing on an adjacent region of the reference template to determine a matching template, and
determining a model parameter according to the first template and the matching template;
performing filtering processing on the reference block according to the model parameter to determine a filtered reference block;
determining a prediction value of the current block according to the filtered reference block; and
determining a prediction residual of the current block according to the prediction value of the current block.
Claim 23. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program and a bitstream stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform following steps to generate the bitstream:
Claim 1. A decoding method, applied to a decoder, wherein the method comprises:
determining a first template of a current block, and determining a matching template and a reference block.
determining model parameters according to the first template and the matching template;
performing filtering on the reference block according to the model parameters to determine a filtered reference block;
determining a prediction value of the current block according to the filtered reference block; and
determining a reconstructed value of the current block according to the prediction value of the current block.
Claim 17. A encoding method, applied to an encoder, wherein the method comprises:
determining a first template of the current block, and determining a matching template and a reference block;
determining model parameters according to the first template and the matching template;
performing filtering on the reference block according to the model parameters to determine a filtered reference block;
determining a prediction value of the current block according to the filtered reference block; and
determining a prediction residual of the current block according to the prediction value of the current block.
Claim 20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has stored a computer program and a bitstream, and the computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the encoding method according to claim 17 to generate the bitstream.
Claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the copending application because both claims are directed to the same template-based filtering and prediction process. The copending claim already requires determining a first template and a matching template, determining model parameters based on those templates, filtering a reference block according to the model parameters, and using the filtered reference block to determine the prediction and reconstructed values of the current block. The instant claim retains the same processing sequence and differs only by further specifying the manner in which the matching template is obtained, namely, when a reference template satisfies a first preset condition, first processing is performed on an adjacent region of the reference template to determine the matching template. Once determined, the matching template performs the same function in the same model-parameter determination, reference-block filtering, predication, and reconstruction process already recited in the copending claim. Thus, the added conditional processing does not introduce a different predication mechanism or processing result, but merely further specifies how the matching template used in the already-claimed process is obtained. Accordingly, the additional limitation constitutes an obvious refinement of the broader matching-template determination and does not render claim 1 patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Fr 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2481 /WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights