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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 08/18/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Double Patenting rejection against US patent US 12,219,262 B2 is withdrawn/deferred based on the terminal disclaimer/claim amendments submitted on 08/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 08/18/2026 Remarks have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of reference being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 8 and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 12,219,262 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 12,219,262 B2
Instant Application:-19/559,028
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: deriving a size of a subblock based on a size of a current block; partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock, wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on depth information, and wherein the depth information indicates the number of partitioning times of the current block; and performing inverse-transformation for the subblock, wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height, wherein the binary tree partitioning is not allowed for the current block having the width identical to the height, and wherein the binary tree partitioning is representative of a division type to divide one current block into two subblocks.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein, in case the current block is square, a quadtree partitioning is performed for the current block, and wherein the quadtree partitioning is representative of a division type to divide one current block into four subblocks.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on a predetermined index for a partitioning, and wherein, in case the current block is a 4N×4N block, the current block is not partitioned, or the current block is partitioned into four 2X×2N subblocks, or the current block is partitioned into sixteen N×N subblocks.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein selection information indicating whether a partitioning shape for transformation of the current block is determined adaptively is obtained from a bitstream, and wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on the selection information.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode.
1. A method for processing an image, the method comprising: determining a current coding unit corresponding to a leaf node of a coding tree based on split information obtained from a bitstream, wherein the current coding unit corresponds to a root node for prediction units and transform units; deriving the prediction units from the current coding unit using a type-based partitioning according to a partition mode obtained from the bitstream; and deriving the transform units from the current coding unit using a recursive tree-based partitioning according to transform tree split information obtained from the bitstream.
‘262 discloses all the elements of claim 1 but ‘262 does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein a current image including the current coding unit includes a padded area constructed by horizontal copying of adjacent pixels.
However, Pu from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein a current image including the current coding unit includes a padded area constructed by horizontal copying of adjacent pixels ([0105], Fig. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘262 to incorporate the teachings of Pu to improve coding efficiency (Pu, [0006]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 12,219,262 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/559,028. Similar rejections can be presented for US 11297309 B2, US 12075026 B2, US 12574498 B2, US 12574497 B2, US 12574496 B2, US 12574495 B2.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-6 refer to "A method for processing an image”, Claim 7 refers to "A method for processing an image”, and, Claim 8 refers to "A method for transmitting a bitstream”. Claims 7-8 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-6, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-6, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20150172714 A1), hereinafter Wu, in view of Lee et al. (US 20180255295 A1), hereinafter Lee, further in view of Huang et al. (US 20160165209 A1), Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising (Abstract): determining a current coding unit corresponding to a leaf node of a coding tree based on split information obtained from a bitstream, wherein the current coding unit corresponds to a root node for units ([0011]-[0016]); deriving the prediction units from the current coding unit using mode obtained from the bitstream ([0011]); and deriving the units from the current coding unit using information obtained from the bitstream ([0011]).
Wu discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Jahid does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section prediction units and transform units; a type-based partitioning according; recursive tree-based partitioning; transform tree split.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor teaches prediction units and transform units; a type-based partitioning according; recursive tree-based partitioning; transform tree split ([0058]-[0069], [0059], recursive, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to incorporate the teachings of Lee to enhance coding efficiency (Lee, [0020]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Wu in view of Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section partitioning according to a partition mode.
However, Huang from the same or similar endeavor teaches partitioning according to a partition mode (Fig. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Huang to improve efficiency (Huang, [0004]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein a current image including the current coding unit includes a padded area constructed by horizontal copying of adjacent pixels.
However, Pu from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein a current image including the current coding unit includes a padded area constructed by horizontal copying of adjacent pixels ([0105], Fig. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang to incorporate the teachings of Pu to improve coding efficiency (Pu, [0006]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang further in view of Pu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the partitioning of the current coding unit into the prediction units is performed based on at least one of a size of the current coding unit or a prediction mode of the current coding unit (Wu, [0011]-[0016], Lee, [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang further in view of Pu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein type information used for the partitioning of the current coding unit into the prediction units indicates a partitioning mode among a plurality of predetermined partitioning modes (Wu, [0011]-[0016], Lee, [0107]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang further in view of Pu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of predetermined partitioning modes comprises partitioning types in which the prediction units have different heights or different widths from each other (Wu, [0011]-[0016], Lee, [0106]-[0108], [0120], [0174], [0205]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang further in view of Pu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein whether to perform the partitioning of the current coding unit into the prediction units is determined based on the type information when the flag is not obtained from the bitstream (It’s obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Lee further in view of Huang further in view of Pu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the prediction units are not further partitioned (It’s obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 7-8, See Examiner’s Note. Oh (US 20130016773 A1), [0030], [0085].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights