DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment with respect to pending claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-25 filed on 05/15/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the amendment of the independent claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 23, the previous rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) of the claims is withdrawn. However, the currently amended claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b). See the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 15 and 20 contain duplicated word “that that” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate has motion information than that is identical or equivalent to motion information of the spatial motion vector prediction candidate above the prediction unit”. It is unclear what the phrase “than that” refers to. The phrase implies a comparison however does not identify what is being compared, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
The limitation “has motion information than that is identical or equivalent to motion information of the spatial motion vector prediction candidate” is unclear because the term “equivalent” lacks objective boundaries. The claim and the specification do not provide a standard by which one of ordinary skill in the art would determine when the motion information is considered “equivalent” to the motion information of the spatial motion vector prediction candidate above the prediction unit. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ that differs from the motion information of the spatial motion vector prediction candidate above the prediction unit by a difference that satisfies a threshold or a similarity metric”. The phrase “differs…by a difference” creates ambiguity because it is unclear what the recited “difference” represents. Furthermore, it is unclear what it meant by “satisfies” a threshold or a similarity metric (e.g. whether the difference is less than, greater than, equal to, or within the threshold). Additionally, “a similarity metric” is not defined by the claim. The specification of the current application (para. [0085] merely states “any other similarity metric”. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 6, 9, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected due to a similar reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-12, 16-19 and 21-25 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 1, 9, 15 and 20.
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 NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights