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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 12,389,121 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 12,389,121 B2
Instant Application:- 19/280,539
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving a prediction direction for a current block, the prediction direction being selected from among a plurality of linear prediction directions based on mode selection information; deriving partial variation of the prediction direction, the partial variation being determined based on an index indicating one among adjacent modes of the prediction direction; deriving an intra prediction direction for the current block based on the base prediction direction and the partial variation; and generating a prediction value for a sample included in a prediction block for the current block by performing intra prediction based on the intra prediction direction.
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving a prediction direction for a current block, the prediction direction being selected from among a plurality of linear prediction directions based on mode selection information; deriving partial variation of the prediction direction, the partial variation being determined based on an index indicating one among adjacent modes of the prediction direction; deriving an intra prediction direction for the current block based on the prediction direction and the partial variation; generating a prediction value for a sample included in a prediction block for the current block by performing intra prediction based on the intra prediction direction; and reconstructing the current block based on a residual block corresponding to the prediction block.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 12,389,121 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/280,539.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
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 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim/claims is/are directed to “A method of transmitting a bitstream” but claim/claims does not have any steps related to “A method of transmitting a bitstream”, therefore, the scope of the claim/claims are/is vague and indefinite.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 1 refers to "An image decoding method”, Claim 2 refers to "An image encoding method”, Claim 3 refers to "A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, and Claim 4 refers to "A method of transmitting a bitstream”. Claims 2-4 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claim 1, where the differences, if any, are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20140092980 A1), hereinafter Guo, in view of Lee et al. (US 20140334543 A1), hereinafter Lee, further in view of Jeong et al. (US 20180160113 A1) hereinafter Jeong.
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising (Abstract): deriving a prediction direction for a current block, the prediction direction being selected from among a plurality of linear prediction directions based on mode selection information ([0014]-[0029]); deriving variation of the prediction direction, the variation being determined based on an index indicating one among adjacent modes of the prediction direction ([0021]-[0024]); generating a prediction value for a sample included in a prediction block for the current block by performing intra prediction based on the intra prediction direction([0021]-[0024]); and reconstructing the current block based on a residual block corresponding to the prediction block ([0006]-[0007]).
Guo discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section deriving an intra prediction direction for the current block based on the prediction direction and the partial variation.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor teaches deriving an intra prediction direction for the current block based on the prediction direction and the partial variation; (Fig. 5, [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to incorporate the teachings of Lee to enhance coding efficiency (Lee, [0007]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Guo in view of Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section partial variation of the prediction direction.
However, Jeong from the same or similar endeavor teaches partial variation of the prediction direction ([0179]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Jeong to improve prediction mode (Jeong, [0004]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2-4, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights