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 .
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,859. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,859 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1-3 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-3 are allowed after filing a TD to overcome the double patenting rejection.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 1, Bross (VVC (Draft4) JVET-M1001-v7) discloses an apparatus for decoding image information, the apparatus comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to:
obtain (parsing syntax element taught in page 25 section 7.1) a sub-block transform (SBT) flag indicating whether a SBT is applied (cu_sbt_flag disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51), wherein the SBT represents a transform applied to a transform unit corresponding to one of subblocks split from a coding unit (page 92 lines 1-5);
check whether a condition related to a width and a height of the transform unit is satisfied (condition related to log2TbWidth and log2TbHeight disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51, if(( tu_mts_idx[x0][y0]>0 || (cu_sbt_flag&&log2TbWidth<6&&log2TbHeight<6) )&& cIdx==0&&log2TbWidth > 4));
determine a width variable and a height variable related to a transform target region based on the SBT flag and the condition (the values of log2TbWidth and log2TbHeight after “if” conditions disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51); and
wherein, based on the SBT flag indicating that the SBT is applied to the transform unit and the condition being satisfied, the width variable related to the transform target region is determined as a first reference value (log2TbWidth=4 and log2TbHeight=4 after satisfying “if” conditions related to cu_sbt_flag and width and height of the transform unit disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51. TbWidth and TbHeight corresponding to log2TbWidth=4 and log2TbHeight=4 are equal to 16, which is considered first reference value), and
wherein, based on the SBT flag indicating that the SBT is not applied to the transform unit or the condition not being satisfied, the width variable related to the transform target region is determined as a smaller value among the width of the transform unit and a second reference value (log2TbWidth = Min(log2TbWidth,5) after “if” conditions related to cu_sbt_flag and width and height of the transform unit is not satisfied, disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51. TbWidth corresponding to value 5 is equal to 32, which is considered second reference value),
wherein, based on the SBT flag indicating that the SBT is applied to the transform unit and the condition being satisfied, the height variable related to the transform target region is determined as the first reference value (log2TbWidth=4 and log2TbHeight=4 after satisfying “if” conditions related to cu_sbt_flag and width and height of the transform unit disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51. TbWidth and TbHeight corresponding to log2TbWidth=4 and log2TbHeight=4 are equal to 16, which is considered first reference value), and
wherein, based on the SBT flag indicating that the SBT is not applied to the transform unit or the condition not being satisfied, the height variable related to the transform target region is determined as a smaller value among the height of the transform unit and the second reference value (log2TbHeight = Min(log2TbHeight,5) after “if” conditions related to cu_sbt_flag and width and height of the transform unit is not satisfied, disclosed in residual coding syntax table of page 51. TbHeight corresponding to value 5 is equal to 32, which is considered second reference value).
In the same field of endeavor, Jung et al. (US 2021/0266581) discloses perform an inverse-transform on the transform target region based on the width variable and the height variable related to the transform target region (paragraph 0267).
However, the prior art, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose the limitation “…wherein the inverse-transform on the transform target region comprises a horizontal direction transform and a vertical direction transform on a non-zero region in the transform unit, wherein a horizontal transform kernel index indicating a type of a horizontal transform kernel for the horizontal direction transform is derived based on the SBT flag, wherein a vertical transform kernel index indicating a type of a vertical transform kernel for the vertical direction transform is derived based on the SBT flag, wherein a width of the non-zero region is determined as a smaller value among the width of the transform unit and 16, based on the horizontal transform kernel index being greater than zero, and wherein a height of the non-zero region is determined as a smaller value among the height of the transform unit and 16, based on the vertical transform kernel index being greater than zero” of claim 1.
Thus, the prior art does not disclose the aforementioned limitation used in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 1.
With regards to claims 2-3, same reasoning applied for claim 1 is applicable to claims 2-3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights