DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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. There are a total of 14 claims and claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/043280, filed on 09/29/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/29/2025, 08/08/2025, 04/30/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 §§ 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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,909,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11,909,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 1 between the instant application and the patent.
19284313 (Instant Application)
11,909,974 B2 (Patent)
Claim 1
Claim 1
1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
2
selecting, for a block of an image or video, a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables;
selecting, for a block of an image, a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on an encoding performance level;
3
encoding the block based on the selected chroma quantization parameters table, wherein the encoding comprises quantizing chroma values of the block according to at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table; and
encoding said block based on the selected chroma quantization parameters table, wherein the encoding comprises quantizing chroma values of said block according to said at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table; and
4
generating a bitstream comprising at least the encoded block and high-level syntax information comprising information representative of the selected chroma quantization parameters table.
generating a bitstream comprising at least said encoded block and high-level syntax information comprising a flag representative of the encoding performance level.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly recited in the patent. Even though the limitation #4 of the instant application recites “…. comprising information representative of the selected chroma quantization parameters table” which is apparently not in the corresponding #4 limitation of the patent, but it is to be noted that in #2 limitation of the patent it recites “selecting, for a block of an image, a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on an encoding performance level”, which means the apparently missing limitation “information representative of the selected chroma quantization parameters table” of instant application is in fact implicitly recited in the patent claim limitation “a flag representative of the encoding performance level”. Therefore, the instant application claim 1 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 5 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Patent 11,909,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 5 between the instant application and the patent.
19284313 (Instant Application)
11,909,974 B2 (Patent)
Claim 5
Claim 9
1
A device comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to:
A device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables; and one or more processors configured to:
2
select, for a block of an image or video, a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables;
select, for a block of an image, a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on an encoding performance level;
3
encode the block based on the selected chroma quantization parameters table, wherein the encoding comprises quantizing chroma values of the block according to at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table; and
encode said block based on the selected chroma quantization parameters table, wherein the encoding comprises quantizing chroma values of said block according to said at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table; and
4
generate a bitstream comprising at least the encoded block and high-level syntax information comprising information representative of the selected chroma quantization parameters table.
generate a bitstream comprising at least said encoded block and high-level syntax information comprising a flag representative of the encoding performance level.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly recited in the patent. Even though the limitation #4 of the instant application recites “…. comprising information representative of the selected chroma quantization parameters table” which is apparently not in the corresponding #4 limitation of the patent, but it is to be noted that in #2 limitation of the patent it recites “selecting, for a block of an image, a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on an encoding performance level”, which means the apparently missing limitation “information representative of the selected chroma quantization parameters table” of instant application is in fact implicitly recited in the patent claim limitation “a flag representative of the encoding performance level”. Therefore, the instant application claim 5 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 9.
Claim 8 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Patent 11,909,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 8 between the instant application and the patent.
19284313 (Instant Application)
11,909,974 B2 (Patent)
Claim 8
Claim 5
1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
2
accessing metadata for a block of an image or video, the metadata comprising information representative of a selection of a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre- determined chroma quantization parameters tables;
accessing metadata for a block of an image or video, said metadata comprising a high-level syntax flag representative of an encoding performance level;
3
selecting a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on the information; and
selecting a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on the high-level syntax flag representative of the encoding performance level; and
4
de-quantizing chroma values of the block using at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table.
de-quantizing chroma values of the block using at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly recited in the patent. Even though the limitation #2 of the instant application recites “…. the metadata comprising information representative of a selection of a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables stored in the memory” which is apparently not in the corresponding #2 limitation of the patent, but it is to be noted that in #3 limitation of the patent it recites “selecting a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on the high-level syntax flag representative of the encoding performance level”, which means the apparently missing limitation “information representative of a selection of a chroma quantization parameters table” of instant application is in fact implicitly recited in the patent claim limitation “based on the high-level syntax flag representative of the encoding performance level”. Therefore, the instant application claim 8 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 5.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Patent 11,909,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 12 between the instant application and the patent.
19284313 (Instant Application)
11,909,974 B2 (Patent)
Claim 12
Claim 12
1
A device comprising: a memory storing a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables; and a processor configured to:
A device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables; and one or more processors configured to:
2
access metadata for a block of an image or video, the metadata comprising information representative of a selection of a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables stored in the memory;
access metadata for a block of an image or video, said metadata comprising a high-level syntax flag representative of an encoding performance level;
3
select a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst a plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on the information; and
select a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on the high-level syntax flag representative of the encoding performance level;
4
de-quantize chroma values of the block using at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table.
de-quantize chroma values of the block using at least one value of the selected chroma quantization parameters table; and
5
produce a reconstructed image based on the de-quantized chroma values of a plurality of blocks of the image.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly recited in the patent. Even though the limitation #2 of the instant application recites “…. the metadata comprising information representative of a selection of a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables stored in the memory” which is apparently not in the corresponding #2 limitation of the patent, but it is to be noted that in #3 limitation of the patent it recites “select a chroma quantization parameters table from amongst the plurality of pre-determined chroma quantization parameters tables based on the high-level syntax flag representative of the encoding performance level”, which means the apparently missing limitation “information representative of a selection of a chroma quantization parameters table” of instant application is in fact implicitly recited in the patent claim limitation “based on the high-level syntax flag representative of the encoding performance level”. Therefore, the instant application claim 12 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 12.
Claim 2-3, 6, 9-11, 13-14 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 10, 6-8, 13, 16 of Patent 11,909,974 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evident from the limitations of the two corresponding sets of claims.
This is a nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
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, 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, 7 are 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.
Claim 4 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing data content generated according to the method of claim 1”. Claim 4 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a data content wherein the subsequent clauses that appear to describe how the data content is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the data content is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the data content and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the data content and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim should instead be recited as “A method of storing data content into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the data content is generated by a method comprising: ”, followed by all the steps of the corresponding method claim (in this case claim 1) and a functional step to store the data content into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Similar issue exists in claim 7 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2016/0277762 A1).
Claim 4’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing data content generated according to the method of claim 1” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated 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(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed data content in claim 4 merely services as a support for the storage of the data content and provides no functional relationship between the stored data content and storage medium. Therefore, the structure “data content”, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream of data content ([0151]).
Same issue exists in claim 7 as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“DETERMINING CHROMA QUANTIZATION PARAMETERS FOR VIDEO CODING” – Zhang et al., US PGPub 2018/0048901 A1.
“CHROMA QUANTIZATION PARAMETER (QP) OFFSET” – Chien et al., US PGPub 2019/0124330 A1.
“SYSTEM AND METHOD OF CROSS-COMPONENT DYNAMIC RANGE ADJUSTMENT (CC-DRA) IN VIDEO CODING” – Rusanovskyy et al., US PGPub 2019/0068969 A1.
“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VARYING QUANTIZATION PARAMETERS” – Zhao et al., US Pat 11039175 B2.
“CHROMA QUANTIZATION PARAMETER ADJUSTMENT IN VIDEO ENCODING AND DECODING” – Leleannec et al., US Pat 11909974 B2.
"Predicting Chroma from Luma with Frequency Domain Intra Prediction" - Egge et al., Proceedings of SPIE 9410, Visual Information Processing and Communication VI, 941009 (March 4, 2015).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL, can be reached on (571)272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights