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 .
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US12445623B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claims 1-20 in the present application is fully disclosed or would have been obvious from the subject matter of claims 1-12 of the referenced patent. Specifically, the differences between the claims are minor and do not result in a patentably distinct invention, as they merely involve variations in implementation that do not confer any unexpected results or inventive step. Accordingly, a terminal disclaimer is required to overcome this rejection.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-8, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galpin et al. (US20190200044A1), hereinafter referred to as Galpin.
Regarding claims 1-6 , these claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream 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 claims is the non-transitory computer-readable 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(I)(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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 1-6 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claims scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Galpin which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (See Galpin, ¶¶[0143], [0145] and [0150]-[0152]).
Regarding claim 7, Galpin discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors (See ¶¶[0143], [0145] and [0150]-[0152])., the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising encoded video data and one or more syntax elements indicating delta values for a dynamic clipping range for a picture of the encoded video data See ¶¶[0084], [0087], [0088], [0095] and [0096] disclosing that picture level syntax carries
quantized clipping bound differences and that at the decoder the differences are decoded from the bitstream);, wherein the delta values indicate deviations from a 10-bit range of sample values (See ¶¶[0068] and [0087]-[0092] disclosing that the encoded differences are
deviations from lower and upper fixed predictors, 64 and 940 is expressly identified as a 10-bit limited range predictor pair.)
deriving, based on the one or more syntax elements, the dynamic clipping range for the picture of the encoded video data, wherein the dynamic clipping range modifies the 10-bit range of sample values (See ¶¶[0092], [0095] and [0096] disclosing that the decoder dequantizes bound differences and combines them with predictors to obtain final clipping bounds for the picture); and
performing one or more clipping operations on the encoded video data using the dynamic clipping range (See [0082] and [0096] disclosing that after bound reconstruction, the video data is clipped using the decoded clipping bounds).
Regarding claim 8, Galpin discloses all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Galpin discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the dynamic clipping range modifies the 10-bit range of sample values from 64 to 940 (See ¶¶[0092] disclosing reconstructing lower and upper clipping bounds from predictors plus and minus decoded deltas).
Regarding claim 14, Galpin discloses all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Galpin discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the dynamic clipping range modifies the 10-bit range of sample values from 64 to 940 ((See ¶¶[0068] and [0087]-[0092] disclosing that the encoded differences are deviations from lower and upper fixed predictors, 64 and 940 is expressly identified as a 10-bit limited range predictor pair and that the decoded differences modify those base bounds)
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 20, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of video decoding of claims 7, 8 and 14, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method of video encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: an encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, in view of Zhao et al. (US20230139083A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhao
Regarding claim 13, Galpin discloses all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Galpin does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein different clipping ranges are used for clipping operations on different color components
However, Zhao from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 7, wherein different clipping ranges are used for clipping operations on different color components (See ¶¶[0258] disclosing different clipping ranges to the luma component and the chroma component, respectively) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Galpin to add the teachings of Zhao as above, in order to improve video/image coding, efficiently applying ACT in the coding process and effectively constructing a clipping range for residuals used in the process of applying ACT (Zhao, [0006]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of video decoding of claim 13, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method of video encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: an encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Claim 11, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, in view of Kim et al. (US20210160507A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Galpin discloses all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Galpin does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 7, further comprising:
determining one or more base clipping ranges based on at least one of the video bitstream and parameters of a compression process used to encode the encoded video data, comprising:
when the one or more syntax elements comprises a single offset parameter for an inclusive base clipping range of the one or more base clipping ranges, wherein the inclusive base clipping range is associated with the picture of the video bitstream, setting the dynamic clipping range based on the single offset parameter and the inclusive base clipping range; and
when the one or more syntax elements comprises a plurality of offset values for respective blocks:
when the respective blocks of the video bitstream are associated with the inclusive base clipping range of the one or more base clipping ranges, setting respective clipping ranges for the respective blocks based on the plurality of offset values and the inclusive base clipping range; and
when the respective blocks of the video bitstream are associated with respective base clipping ranges of the one or more base clipping ranges, setting respective clipping ranges for the respective blocks based on the plurality of offset values and the respective base clipping range..
However, Kim from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising:
determining one or more base clipping ranges based on at least one of the video bitstream and parameters of a compression process used to encode the encoded video data (See ¶¶[0046] and [0053]-[0055]), comprising:
when the one or more syntax elements comprises a single offset parameter for an inclusive base clipping range of the one or more base clipping ranges, wherein the inclusive base clipping range is associated with the picture of the video bitstream, setting the dynamic clipping range based on the single offset parameter and the inclusive base clipping range (See ¶ [0053] and Table 4); and
when the one or more syntax elements comprises a plurality of offset values for respective blocks:
when the respective blocks of the video bitstream are associated with the inclusive base clipping range of the one or more base clipping ranges, setting respective clipping ranges for the respective blocks based on the plurality of offset values and the inclusive base clipping range See ¶¶[0051] and [0055]); and
when the respective blocks of the video bitstream are associated with respective base clipping ranges of the one or more base clipping ranges, setting respective clipping ranges for the respective blocks based on the plurality of offset values and the respective base clipping range (See ¶¶ [0054] and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Galpin to add the teachings of Kim as above, in order to identify missing rules for mixing certain SEI payload types in the same SEI NAL unit, which complicates sub-bitstream extraction and conformance handling. (Kim, [0046] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Galpin and Kim disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Galpin does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising overwriting the dynamic clipping range at a specified lower level.
However, Kim from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising overwriting the dynamic clipping range at a specified lower level (See ¶¶[0051]-[0055]).
The motivation for combining Galpin and Kim has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of video decoding of claim 12, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method of video encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: an encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights