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 .
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.
US 11,368,695 B2
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10, 15 & 19-20 of US 11,368,695 B2.
Instant 19/337,745
US 11,368,695 B2
1. A method for encoding comprising:
1. A method for encoding comprising:
obtaining a prediction value of a current color component of a sample of a block of a picture;
obtaining a prediction value of a source value of a current color component of a sample of a block of a picture;
determining a mapped residual value from a source value of said current color component and from the prediction value using a mapping function; and
determining a mapped residual value from the source value of the current color component and from the prediction value using a mapping function; and
encoding the mapped residual value into a bitstream.
encoding the mapped residual value into a bitstream;
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of US 11,368,695 B2.
Regarding claims (2-12), claims (2-12) in the instant application correspond to
claims (1, 6, 6, 10, 10, 15, 15, 19, 19, 20, 20) in US 11,368,695 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2018/0176594 A1, with provisional benefit to 62/436,319) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for encoding comprising:
obtaining a prediction value of a current color component of a sample of a block of a picture [Paragraph [0062]-[0066], supported in paragraphs [0046]-[0050], obtaining chroma prediction blocks, containing chroma prediction values of source chroma values in a video block];
determining a mapped residual value from a source value of said current color component and from the prediction value using a mapping function; and encoding the mapped residual value into a bitstream [Paragraph [0164]-[0166], supported in paragraphs [0108]-[0112], using LM encoding as mapping function to generate and encode residual chroma block as mapped chroma residual].
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein determining the mapped residual value comprises: mapping the prediction value with the mapping function to obtain a mapped prediction value; determining an intermediate residual value representative of a difference between the mapped prediction value and the source value; and mapping the intermediate residual value using the mapping function [Paragraph [0164]-[0166], supported in paragraphs [0108]-[0112], using LM encoding as mapping function to generate and encode residual chroma block as mapped chroma residual].
Regarding claim 3-4, claims (3-4) are drawn to a decoding method having limitations similar to the encoding method of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (3-4) correspond to method claims (1-2) and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Regarding claims 5-6, claims (5-6) are drawn to an encoding device having limitations similar to the method of encoding of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, device claims (5-6) correspond to method claims (1-2) and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Regarding claims 7-8, claims (7-8) are drawn to an decoding device having limitations similar to the method of decoding of using the same as claimed in claims (3-4) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, device claims (7-8) correspond to method claims (3-4) and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Regarding claims 9-10, claims (9-10) are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored instructions having limitations similar to the method of encoding of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims (9-10) correspond to method claims (1-2) and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Regarding claims 11-12, claims (11-12) are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored instructions having limitations similar to the method of decoding of using the same as claimed in claims (3-4) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims (11-12) correspond to method claims (3-4) and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights