DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090257499 A1 (Karczewicz)
US 20130182780 A1 (Alshin)
US 20180262756 A1 (Filter control, Fig.3)
US 20170302950 A1 (subpixel interpolation filter type in para 54)
US 20120269261 A1 (Fig.13 filter selection in interpredicton)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Alshin
Regarding Claim 1. Karczewicz teaches image data encoding apparatus [(para 8, Fig.2)] comprising: an inter-image predictor configured to predict samples of a current image region, of a plurality of regions of an image in a sequence of images, with respect to a reference image region of another, reference, image of the sequence of images, [(para 55-60: 4: please note pixel => claimed sample: video or image block=> region of image: and video frames, previous, current frame etc. are sequence of image)]according to a direction vector indicating a spatial displacement of the reference image region from the current image region: [(para 93: a vector indicate a direction)]: the inter-image predictor comprising an interpolation filter configured to generate the predicted samples of the current image region by spatial interpolation of samples of the reference image region [(para 57)], at least in instances where the direction vector indicates a spatial displacement of a non-integer number of samples[(sub-pixel para 93)], in which the interpolation filter is configured to operate according to a set of filter parameters each defining of a set of filters providing interpolation [(“sets of interpolation filter coefficients” in para 36, 37, 52)] at a spatial displacement resolution of 1/m sample, where m is an integer greater than one: [(half-pixel, quarter-pixel in para 59:sub-pixel in para 93)] : and a filter response selector configured to select, a set of the filter parameters from two or more candidate sets of filter parameters for use in respect of at least the current image region[(“adaptively defines the interpolation filter (by selecting filter coefficients)” para 37, 76, 90)]
Karczwicz is not also explicit about the set of filtering parameters defining the spatial frequency response. However, given that in Karczewicz these different parameters {tap, coefficients} defining different filters {para 36} it is understood/implied that they are also defining frequency response, because each filter has a frequency response. Given that this filter is applied in on digital image {para 70 and Fig.4, on an image hence the spatial frequency response})
Nevertheless, in the same/related field of endeavor, Alshin explicitly indicates in fact interpolation filtering tap/coefficients/parameters defining the spatial frequency response [(para 15, 90 and Fig.1:please note that the filter is applied on an digital image that has spatial dimension, hence the spatial frequency response)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because Alshin teaching/assertion of interpolation filtering coefficient’s relation of frequency response is readily applicable to Karczewicz filter coefficients with no change of their function with predictable result.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12309377 in view of Alshin. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, with respect to claim 1 the patented claim teaches all the limitations except “and a filter response selector.” . Applying the analysis and rationale of the prior art, this is obvious. Other claims are obvious variations of patented claims.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 19212365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the encoding apparatus of the instant claim obvious over encoding method of patented claim 17, which teaches all the corresponding limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
