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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 15 October 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/470853 (reference application); claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/448893; and claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/164263. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide various options of determining a best mode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2021/0112263 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, and 19-20, Choi discloses an encoder/decoder to perform a method for video coding, comprising: receiving data to be encoded or decoded as a current block of pixels of a current picture of a video, wherein the current block comprises a luma block and at least one chroma block [Choi: Abstract: A picture decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus according to the present disclosure includes detecting intra prediction modes of a plurality of luma blocks in a luma region corresponding to a current chroma block, generating a first predicted block for the current chroma block based on a first intra prediction mode of the intra prediction modes of the plurality of luma blocks, generating a second predicted block for the current chroma block based on a second intra prediction mode of the intra prediction modes of the plurality of luma blocks, generating a predicted block for the current chroma block based on a weighted sum using the first predicted block and the second predicted block, and generating a reconstructed block based on the predicted block for the current chroma block]; and encoding or decoding the current block by a target prediction mode [Choi: ¶ [0016] According to the present disclosure, it is possible to increase the intra encoding and decoding efficiency of a chroma image by providing a method of combining or connecting chroma intra prediction mode candidate], comprising: obtaining a first data, wherein the first data is derived from cross-component prediction of chroma samples of the current block [Choi: ¶ [0081] In one embodiment, when performing intra encoding of a chrominance image in a Joint Exploration TEST Model (JEM) used in a Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET), prediction may be performed in a cross component linear model (CCLM) mode] or luma reconstructed samples of the current block [Choi: ¶[0140] When detecting of the intra prediction modes of the plurality of luma blocks, the decoding apparatus according to an embodiment may generate a plurality of luma prediction blocks based on each of the intra prediction modes of the luma blocks, perform prediction accuracy determination for each of the plurality of luma prediction blocks based on a reconstructed block for the luma block, and detect at least one selected luma block from among the plurality of luma blocks based on the prediction accuracy determination; and ¶ [0007] Still another technical objective of the present disclosure is to provide a method and apparatus which increase intra prediction efficiency based on at least one of neighboring samples of a chroma block and samples in a luma block corresponding to the chroma block when a cross component linear model (CCLM) is not applied]; obtaining a second data, wherein the second data is derived from intra chroma prediction of the chroma samples of the current block [Choi: Abstract; and ¶ [0136] The decoding apparatus according to an embodiment may receive index information on an intra chroma prediction mode] or inter chroma prediction of the chroma samples of the current block; and determining prediction of the chroma samples of the current block by jointly considering the first data and the second data [Choi: ¶ [0008] a method and apparatus which derive a new chroma intra prediction mode based on chroma prediction mode candidates].
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein determining the prediction of the chroma samples of the current block by jointly considering the first data and the second data comprises: generating the prediction of the chroma samples of the current block by blending the first data and the second data according to blending weighting [Choi: ¶ [0135] In an embodiment, when the first intra prediction mode is the DC mode, the decoding apparatus may derive first prediction samples in the first predicted block by using a DC value derived based on values of left neighboring samples and top neighboring samples of the current chroma block; when the second intra prediction mode is the horizontal mode, the decoding apparatus may derive second prediction samples in the second predicted block based on left samples of the current chroma block, and may derive prediction samples of the predicted block based on the weighted sum using the first prediction samples and the prediction samples].
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the blending weighting is derived on a neighboring template of the current block [Choi: ¶ [0135]].
Regarding Claim 4, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the neighboring template comprises an above reference region, a left reference region, an above-left reference region, or any combination thereof [Choi: ¶ [0135]].
Regarding Claim 5, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the blending weighting is derived on the neighboring template by using a regression method [Choi: ¶ [0135]: the decoding apparatus may derive second prediction samples in the second predicted block based on left samples of the current chroma block, and may derive prediction samples of the predicted block based on the weighted sum using the first prediction samples and the prediction samples].
Regarding Claim 6, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the blending weighting is set by pre-defined weighting [Choi: ¶ [0138] In an embodiment, a first weight and second weight for the first predicted block and second predicted block used to derive the weighted sum may be equal to each other].
Regarding Claim 7, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the pre-defined weighting applies equal weights to the first data and the second data, respectively [Choi: ¶ [0138]].
Regarding Claim 8, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein weights of the blending weighting vary with neighboring coding information, sample position, block width, block height, prediction mode [Choi: ¶ [0122]: When generating a combined DM mode according to an embodiment, a weight may be assigned according to the importance of the DM mode to be combined. More specifically, a higher weight may be given to a DM mode candidate selected preferentially over other DM mode candidates. In an example, when the DIAGONAL mode, the DC mode, and the horizontal mode are selected in this order, the weight of the preferentially selected DIAGONAL mode may correspond to twice the weight of other DM mode candidates. Normalization may be performed according to the changed weight], or block area.
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the first data is derived from the luma reconstructed samples of the current block [Choi: Abstract; and ¶ [0140]], and the second data is derived from the intra chroma prediction of the chroma samples of the current block [Choi: Abstract; and ¶ [0136]].
Regarding Claim 10, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the second data is derived from the intra chroma prediction using a DC mode, a planar mode, or an angular mode [Choi: ¶ [0040]: In the intra-prediction, prediction modes may include as an example 33 directional modes and at least two non-directional modes. The non-directional modes may include DC mode and planar mode].
Regarding Claim 12, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the first data comprises cross-component predictors of the chroma samples, and obtaining the first data comprises: constructing a merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction [Choi: ¶ [0069] The predictor 230 may construct a merge candidate list using motion information of available neighboring blocks and use information indicated by a merge index on the merge candidate list as a motion vector of the current block]; and determining a cross-component predictor of a chroma sample according to a cross-component model candidate selected from the merge candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0072]: Here, the predictor 230 may derive the motion vector of the current block using the merge index].
Regarding Claim 13, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein constructing the merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction comprises: adding a cross-component model located at a spatial neighboring position to the merge candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0068] In the skip mode and the merge mode, motion information of a neighboring block may be used as motion information of the current block. Here, the neighboring block may include a spatial neighboring block and a temporal neighboring block; and ¶ [0069] The predictor 230 may construct a merge candidate list using motion information of available neighboring blocks and use information indicated by a merge index on the merge candidate list as a motion vector of the current block].
Regarding Claim 14, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein constructing the merge candidate list for cross-component prediction comprises: adding a cross-component model located at a temporal collocated position to the merge candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0068]-[0069]].
Regarding Claim 15, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein constructing the merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction comprises: adding a cross-component model from a history table to the merge candidate list, wherein the history table contains cross-component models of previously coded chroma blocks [Choi: ¶ [0072] When the merge mode is applied, for example, a merge candidate list may be generated using a motion vector of a reconstructed spatial neighboring block and/or a motion vector corresponding to a Col block which is a temporal neighboring block].
Regarding Claim 16, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein constructing the merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction comprises: adding a model derived based on model information from more than one previous candidate in the merge candidate list to the merge candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0015] According to the present disclosure, it is possible to increase the intra prediction accuracy of a chroma image by providing a method of combining or connecting chroma intra prediction mode candidates].
Regarding Claim 17, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein constructing the merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction comprises: adding a default cross-component model to the merge candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0133] The decoding device according to an embodiment may determine chroma prediction mode candidates based on the intra prediction modes of the plurality of luma blocks, intra prediction modes of neighboring chroma blocks of the current chroma block, and at least one default prediction mode].
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 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(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2025/0016343 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein the first data is derived from the cross-component prediction using a multiple model cross-component model mode.
However, Chen discloses wherein the first data is derived from the cross-component prediction using a multiple model cross-component model mode [Chen: ¶ [0008] In another implementation of the first aspect of the present disclosure, the filtering flag of the selected one of the plurality of CCP merge candidates is determined from the video data for determining whether the prediction block of the block unit is further filtered when a cross-component model mode of the prediction model of the selected one of the plurality of CCP merge candidates is one of a plurality of multiple-model cross-component prediction modes].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi with the mode selection of Chen in order to provide improved prediction output.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 2022/0279169 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein constructing the merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction comprises: adding a self-derived model to the merge candidate list.
However, Deng discloses wherein constructing the merge candidate list for the cross-component prediction comprises: adding a self-derived model to the merge candidate list [Deng: ¶[0585] A13. The method of any one or more of clauses A8-A9, wherein, if a neighbouring sample is unavailable, then the neighbouring sample is filled by a pre-determined or mapped value.
[0586] A14. The method of clause A13, wherein the pre-determined or mapped value is expressed as 1<<(bitDepth−1), where bitDepth denoted a bit depth of samples in the collocated luma block.
[0587] A15. The method of clause A13, wherein the pre-determined or mapped value is based on a look up table (LUT)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi with the mode selection of Deng in order to provide redundant processes when required information is unavailable, improving performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights