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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 18/074,898 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to examined the claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1, 3, 5 – 10, 12, and 14 - 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al (US 2020/0413084, hereafter XU) in view of Lee (US 2021/0105499) in further view of Leleannec (US 2021/0266586, hereafter Leleannec).
As per claim 1, XU discloses a method of video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video comprising a current video block and a bitstream of the video, whether to insert a block vector of a non-adjacent neighboring block into a list of motion candidates for a prediction of a block vector of the current video block based on whether the non-adjacent neighboring block and the current video block are in different coding tree unit (CTU) rows (¶ 109; The HMVP table is reset (emptied) when a new CTU row is encountered in some examples); and
performing, based on the determining, the conversion, wherein the block vector of the non-adjacent neighboring block is not inserted into the list of motion candidates for the prediction of the block vector of the current video block in response to the current video block and the non-adjacent neighboring block being in different CTU rows (¶ 116 - 120).
However, XU does not explicitly teach wherein the non-adjacent neighboring block covering position (x - M, y + H/2) or position (x + W/2, y - M) is checked when constructing the list of motion candidates, wherein a coordinator of a top-left sample of the current video block is (x, y), M is an integer, W is a width of the current video block, and H is a height of the current video block.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the non-adjacent neighboring block covering position (x - M, y + H/2) or position (x + W/2, y - M) is checked when constructing the list of motion candidates, wherein a coordinator of a top-left sample of the current video block is (x, y), M is an integer, W is a width of the current video block, and H is a height of the current video block (¶ 156).
However, XU or Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the block vector of the non-adjacent neighboring block is inserted into the list of motion candidates after block vectors from a history-based block vector prediction (HBVP) candidates list.
In the same field of endeavor, Leleannec wherein the block vector of the non-adjacent neighboring block is inserted into the list of motion candidates after block vectors from a history-based block vector prediction (HBVP) candidates list (¶ 98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of XU in view of Lee in further view of Leleannec. The advantage is optimizing video coding.
As per claim 3, XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein M = 8 (¶ 112).
As per claim 5, XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the block vector of the non-adjacent neighboring block is not inserted into the list of motion candidates in response to the list of motion candidates comprising no empty entries after inserting block vectors from (i) a history-based block vector prediction (HBVP) candidates list and/or (ii) adjacent neighboring blocks of the current video block (¶ 114 and 116).
As per claim 6, XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) merge list (¶ 134).
As per claim 7, XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list (¶ 134).
As per claim 8, XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream (¶ 31).
As per claim 9, XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream (¶ 31).
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim(s) 2 and 3 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim(s) 2 and 3 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim(s) 6 and 3 are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, arguments analogous to those presented for claim(s) 7 are applicable for claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, arguments analogous to those presented for claim(s) 6 and 3 are applicable for claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, arguments analogous to those presented for claim(s) 7 are applicable for claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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 on 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights