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, 4, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,028 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, Pham Van et al. (US 20200404324) discloses an apparatus for decoding an image (fig. 13), the apparatus comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory (paragraph 0308), the at least one processor configured to:
obtain image information including prediction mode information from a bitstream (paragraph 0219, Entropy decoding unit 302 may receive encoded video data from the CPB and entropy decode the video data to reproduce syntax elements. Entropy decoding unit 302 may entropy decode intra-prediction information according to any of the various techniques of this disclosure to determine an intra-prediction mode, and pass an indication of the intra-prediction mode to intra-prediction unit 318; see also paragraphs 0226-0227);
obtain matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) flag information indicating whether an MIP is applied to a current block based on the prediction mode information (e.g. intra_mip_flag taught in the syntax table of paragraph 0131; see also paragraph 0251 and FIG. 17, if the intra-prediction mode is not a regular intra-prediction mode (“NO” branch of 422), entropy decoding unit 302 may entropy decode a value for a non-regular intra-prediction mode syntax element (430), e.g., one or more of an intra_bdpcm_flag, an intra_mip_flag);
derive an MIP mode for the current block (paragraph 0072, video decoder 300 may decode the values of syntax elements for non-regular intra-prediction modes, such as the MIP mode as taught in paragraph 0063, when a regular intra-prediction mode is not used) based on the MIP flag information (see the syntax table of paragraph 0131);
derive an MIP matrix for the current block based on the MIP mode (e.g. see matrix Ak disclosed in paragraph 0096; see fig. 11; paragraph 0072, Video decoder 300 may form a prediction block for the current block using the signaled intra-prediction mode);
generate MIP samples for the current block based on the MIP matrix (e.g. pred.sub.red shown in fig. 11; paragraph 0096, The vector representation of the boundary samples, bdry.sub.red, is multiplied with a matrix A.sub.k and an offset/bias term b.sub.k is added to obtain a downsampled version of the predicted block, pred.sub.red); and
derive reconstructed samples for the current block based on the MIP samples (fig. 13; paragraph 0228, Reconstruction unit 310 may reconstruct the current block using the prediction block and the residual block. For example, reconstruction unit 310 may add samples of the residual block to corresponding samples of the prediction block to reconstruct the current block),
wherein the MIP matrix is derived further based on the width and the height of the current block (fig. 11 and paragraph 0096 disclose that matrix Ak is chosen based on the mode; wherein based on block sizes, width and height, different mode is used as taught in paragraphs 0098-0101).
However, the prior art, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose the limitations “…wherein for the current block whose size is 64x4 in which a ratio of a width and a height of the current block is larger than four, the MIP flag information indicating whether the MIP is applied to the current block is obtained from the bitstream,…wherein the MIP matrix is derived based on three matrix sets including a first matrix set, a second matrix set, and a third matrix set, and wherein a number of matrixes of the first matrix set is different from a number of matrixes of the second matrix set, the number of matrixes of the first matrix set is different from a number of matrixes of the third matrix set, and the number of matrixes of the second matrix set is different from the number of matrixes of the third matrix set” 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