DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filed on 25 JULY 2025 and the subsequently filed Information Disclosure Statements.
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) submitted on 07/25/2025, 10/23/2025, 12/23/2025, and 04/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are 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 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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,395,636 (hereinafter “Patent ‘636”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated by Patent ‘636. The only distinction in each independent claim is defining the clipping boundary as a range; however, the range is identically present in claim 9 of Patent ‘636. In addition, the range is obvious over the prior-art’s disclosure of describing 2i and MPEP § 2131.03(II), because the range merely represents a ± of the 2i, with inclusive or exclusive ranges of the set.
The following tables exemplify the similarities between the instant application and Patent ‘636.
Instant Application
Patent ‘636
Claim 21: A computer-implemented method for coding video data, comprising:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for encoding video data, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of image samples of a video frame, each image sample corresponding to one of a luma sample and a chroma sample;
obtaining a plurality of image samples of a video frame, each image sample corresponding to one of a luma sample and a chroma sample;
for each of the plurality of image samples, filtering a respective image sample using an adaptive loop filter having a filter length L and a set of filter coefficients, further including:
for each of the plurality of image samples, filtering a respective image sample using an adaptive loop filter having a filter length L and a set of filter coefficients, further including:
identifying a set of related image samples of the respective image sample;
identifying a set of related image samples of the respective image sample;
for each of the set of related image samples, identifying a respective clip value index and a corresponding filter coefficient;
for each of the set of related image samples, identifying a respective clip value index and a corresponding filter coefficient;
clipping a difference between the each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective clip value index,
clipping a difference between each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective clip value index, wherein the respective clip value index corresponds to a respective clipping boundary value equal to 2 to a power of a respective clipping number, and the respective clipping number is an integer; and
wherein for each of the set of related image samples, the clipped difference between the respective related image sample and the respective image sample is in one of a plurality of ranges including [-2i+1, 2i], [-2i, 2i], and [-2i+1, 2i-1], wherein i is a respective clipping number; and
Claim 9: wherein for each of the set of related image samples, the clipped difference between the respective related image sample and the respective image sample is in one of a plurality of ranges including [−2i+1, 2i], [−2i, 2i], and [−2i+1, 2i−1], wherein i is the respective clipping number.
modifying the respective image sample with the clipped difference between the each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective filter coefficient.
modifying the respective image sample with the clipped difference between each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective filter coefficient.
Instant Application
Patent ‘636
Claim 22: wherein the respective clip value index corresponds to a respective clipping boundary value equal to 2 to a power of the respective clipping number, and the respective clipping number is an integer.
Claim 1: wherein the respective clip value index corresponds to a respective clipping boundary value equal to 2 to a power of a respective clipping number, and the respective clipping number is an integer;
Instant Application
Patent ‘636
Claim 23: wherein for each image sample of the plurality of image samples, the clipping the difference based on the respective clip value index comprises:
Claim 2: wherein for each image sample of the plurality of image samples, the clipping difference based on the respective clip value index comprises:
determining an internal bit depth index (IBDI) of the respective image sample;
determining an internal bit depth index (IBDI) of the respective image sample;
for each of the set of related image samples, determining a respective clipping boundary value based on the IBDI and the respective clip value index according to a predefined clipping boundary value table; and
for each of the set of related image samples, determining the respective clipping boundary value based on the IBDI and the respective clip value index according to a predefined clipping boundary value table; and
clipping the difference between each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective clipping boundary value.
clipping the difference between each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective clipping boundary value.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,729 (hereinafter “Patent ‘729”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated by Patent ‘729. The only distinction in each independent claim is defining the clipping boundary as a range; however, the range is identically present in claim 10 of Patent ‘729. In addition, the range is obvious over the prior-art’s disclosure of describing 2i and MPEP § 2131.03(II), because the range merely represents a ± of the 2i, with inclusive or exclusive ranges of the set.
The following tables exemplify the similarities between the instant application and Patent ‘729.
Instant Application
Patent ‘729
Claim 21: A computer-implemented method for coding video data, comprising:
Claim 1: A method for decoding video data, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of image samples of a video frame, each image sample corresponding to one of a luma sample and a chroma sample;
obtaining, from a bitstream, a plurality of image samples of a video frame, each image sample corresponding to one of a luma sample and a chroma sample;
for each of the plurality of image samples, filtering a respective image sample using an adaptive loop filter having a filter length L and a set of filter coefficients, further including:
for each of the plurality of image samples, filtering a respective image sample of the plurality of image samples using an adaptive loop filter having a filter length L and a set of filter coefficients, further including:
identifying a set of related image samples of the respective image sample;
identifying a set of related image samples of the respective image sample;
for each of the set of related image samples, identifying a respective clip value index and a corresponding filter coefficient;
for each of the set of related image samples, identifying a respective clip value index and a corresponding filter coefficient;
clipping a difference between the each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective clip value index,
clipping a different between the each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective clip value index, wherein the respective clip value index corresponds to a respective clipping boundary value equal to 2 to a power of a respective clipping number, and the respective clipping number is an integer; and
wherein for each of the set of related image samples, the clipped difference between the respective related image sample and the respective image sample is in one of a plurality of ranges including [-2i+1, 2i], [-2i, 2i], and [-2i+1, 2i-1], wherein i is a respective clipping number; and
Claim 10: wherein for the each of the set of related image samples, the clipped difference between the respective related image sample and the respective image sample is in one of a plurality of ranges including [−2i′+1, 2i], [−2i, 2i], and [−2i+1, 2i−1], wherein i is the respective clipping number
modifying the respective image sample with the clipped difference between the each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective filter coefficient.
modifying the respective image sample with the clipped difference between the each of the set of related image samples and the respective image sample based on the respective filter coefficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0094919 A1 (hereinafter “Lai”) – Discloses ALF filtering and clipping values. See Lai, ¶ [0074].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights