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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: all reference numbers in fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The same issue occurred in both parent applications (#17/228,306 with corresponding patent #11,683,533 and #18/313,984 with corresponding patent #12,418,686), see 17/228,306 application Specification amended on 12/27/22 to fix the issue.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to note that the steps of claim 18 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The non-transitory computer readable medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. The non-transitory computer readable medium is merely serving as support for data created by the steps.
The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium which cause a processor to execute the steps listed in the claim to generate a bitstream.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 9, “the first CTB and the second CTB” should be “a first CTB and a second CTB” to avoid a potential antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,418,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the current application is anticipated by claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. Details for other claims are also listed below.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,418,686
Claim 1
Claim 1
1. (Currently Amended) A device for deblocking a chroma horizontal block edge between a first chroma block and a second chroma block of an image, wherein the first chroma block has a height of SA samples, wherein a direction of the height of the SA samples is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge. wherein the second chroma block has a height of SB samples, wherein a direction of the height of the SB samples is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and wherein the image -includes a plurality of coding tree blocks (CTBs) arranged in a matrix of CTBs, the device comprising: a deblocking filler configured to: determine whether the chroma horizontal block edge is overlapped with a horizontal chroma coding tree block (CTB) boundary between a first CTB and a second CTB among the plurality of CTBs; and in response to determining that the chroma horizontal block edge is overlapped with the horizontal chroma CTB boundary; use values of at most DA samples of the first chroma block as first filter decision values, the at most DA samples being located at a column of the first chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge and the at most DA samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; use values of at most DB samples of the second chroma block as second filter decision values, the at most DB samples being located at a column of the second chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge and the at most DB samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; modify values of at most MA samples of the first chroma block as first filter output values, the at most MA samples being located at the column of the first chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and the at most MA samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; and modify values of at most MB samples of the second chroma block as second filter output values, the at most MB samples being located at the column of the second chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and the at most MB samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; wherein the first chroma block is above the horizontal chroma CTB boundary and the second chroma block is below the horizontal chroma CTB boundary; wherein SA ≠ SB, MA<MB, DA<DB, SA>DA>MA, and SB>DB>MB; and wherein SA and SB are equal to or greater than 8. MB = 3, and MA = 1.
1. A device for deblocking a chroma horizontal block edge between a first chroma block and a second chroma block of an image, wherein the first chroma block has a height of SA samples, wherein a direction of the height of the SA samples is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, wherein the second chroma block has a height of SB samples, wherein a direction of the height of the SB samples is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and wherein the image includes a plurality of coding tree blocks (CTBs) arranged in a matrix of CTBs, the device comprising: a deblocking filter configured to: determine whether the chroma horizontal block edge is overlapped with a horizontal chroma coding tree block (CTB) boundary between a first CTB and a second CTB among the plurality of CTBs; and in response to determining that the chroma horizontal block edge is overlapped with the horizontal chroma CTB boundary: use values of at most DA samples of the first chroma block as first filter decision values, the at most DA samples being located at a column of the first chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and the at most DA samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; use values of at most DB samples of the second chroma block as second filter decision values, the at most DB samples being located at a column of the second chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and the at most DB samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; modify values of at most MA samples of the first chroma block as first filter output values, the at most MA samples being located at the column of the first chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and the at most MA samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; and modify values of at most MB samples of the second chroma block as second filter output values, the at most MB samples being located at the column of the second chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and the at most MB samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; wherein the first chroma block is above the horizontal chroma CTB boundary and the second chroma block is below the horizontal chroma CTB boundary; wherein SA and SB are both equal to or greater than 8, MA<MB, DA<DB, SA>DA>MA, and SB>DB>MB; and wherein MB=3, MA=1, DB=4, and DA=2.
Claims 2 is anticipated by claim 1 of the U.S. patent. Claims 3-7 are anticipated by claims 2-6 of the U.S. Patent. Claims 3-7 are anticipated by claims 2-6 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 8 is anticipated by claim 7 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 9 is anticipated by claim 7 of the U.S. patent. Claims 10-14 are anticipated by claims 8-12 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 15 is anticipated by claim 13 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 16 is anticipated by claim 13 of the U.S. patent. Claim 17 is anticipated by claim 14 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,418,686 in view of Tourapis et al. (U.S. 2016/0094859), hereinafter Tourapis. Tourapis was cited on the Applicant’s IDS dated 2/26/26.
The instant application includes additional limitations a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a bitstream.
However, Tourapis teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a bitstream (Tourapis [0022], [0093] and claim 7 and claim interpretation section above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. patent with the missing limitations as taught by Tourapis to improve coding efficiency and allow for decoding and playback by an end user (Tourapis [0022]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency and increasing flexibility of a video encoder or decoder.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 last 2 lines of claim 8 refer to variables that may be part of a contingent limitation according to MPEP 2111.04(II). According to the current claim language, if there is no overlap, the variables are not initially introduced. The Examiner recommends deleting “whether” in the first determining step of claim 8 (“determining, by a device, that ”) to avoid potential contingent limitation interpretation as this creates a potential grammatical or clarity issues as well with the phrase “that whether”. The Examiner believes that this may have been a typo as well if the Applicant was trying to amend in a similar manner to allowed parent application no. 18/313,984 (see allowed claims filed 4/28/25).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 repeats the limitations of the last 2 lines of claim 18 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tourapis et al. (U.S. 2016/0094859), hereinafter Tourapis. Tourapis was cited on the Applicant’s IDS dated 2/26/26.
Regarding claim 18, Tourapis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a bitstream (Tourapis [0022], [0093] and claim 7) generated by an image encoding process including a deblocking for deblocking a chroma horizontal block edge between a first chroma block and a second chroma block of an image, the first chroma block has a height of SA samples, wherein a direction of the height of the SA samples is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, wherein the second chroma block has a height of SB samples, wherein a direction of the height of the SB samples is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge, and wherein the image includes a plurality of coding tree blocks (CTBs) arranged in a matrix of CTBs, the deblocking comprising the steps of: determine whether the chroma horizontal block edge is overlapped with a horizontal chroma coding tree block (CTB) boundary between the first CTB and the second CTB among the plurality of CTBs: in response to determining that the chroma horizontal block edge is overlapped with the horizontal chroma CTB boundary; using values of at most DA samples of the first chroma block as first filter decision values, the at most DA samples being located at a column of the first chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge and the at most DA samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; using values of at most DB samples of the second chroma block as second filter decision values. the at most DB samples being located at a column of the second chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge and the at most DB samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; modifying values of at most MA samples of the first chroma block as first filter output values, the at most MA samples being located at the column of the first chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge and the at most MA samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge; and modifying values of at most MB samples of the second chroma block as second filter output values, the at most MB samples being located at the column of the second chroma block that is perpendicular to the chroma horizontal block edge and the at most MB samples being adjacent to the chroma horizontal block edge: wherein the first chroma block is above the horizontal chroma CTB boundary and the second chroma block is below the horizontal chroma CTB boundary; wherein SA ≠ SB, MA< MB, DA<DB, SA>DA>MA, and SB>DB>MB; and wherein SA and SB are equal to or greater than 8, MB = 3 and MA = 1, and DB= 4 and DA=2 (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, see Claim Interpretation section above and citations for claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. 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, Chris Kelley can be reached on (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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights