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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/30/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because they related entirely to the newly amended claim limitations for which new art Chen is provided.
In regard to the applicants argument that the rejection for Double Patenting is premature, examiners are encouraged to practice compact prosecution including presenting any applicable rejections early in the prosecution process (See MPEP 2173.06). Therefore the examiner will maintain the Double Patenting rejection and reexamine is applicability as appropriate.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,895,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims of the instant application are entirely encompassed by the disclosure of claims 1-14 of the ‘319 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘319 patent includes additional limitations not required by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for Double Patenting is proper for broader later filed claims in view of narrower earlier filed claims.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al (2020/0221120) in view of Huang et al (2019/0058896) and in further view of Chen et al (20180098063).
In regard to claim 1 a method for constructing a candidate motion information list comprising:
generating, by an apparatus, the candidate motion information list comprising one or more candidate motion information set, wherein each of the one or more candidate motion information sets is obtained from a neighboring affine image block of a current image block by using an inherited control point motion vector predication method, and wherein the at least one candidate motion information set comprises candidate motion information of x control points of the current image block where x is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Robert Fig. 9 and pars 88-92 affine merge mode which use candidate sets of 3 control point motion vectors [candidate motion information set] inherited from a neighboring affine block, further generally note Figs 18-24 and pars 111-137 for variations on building a candidate list [candidate motion information list] for the affine merge mode, particularly note Fig. 23 which constructs a candidate motion list of which includes multiple candidate motion information sets of affine motion vector candidates obtained from neighboring affine blocks ); and
based on a quantity of candidate motion information sets in the candidate motion information list being less than a preset quantity value, adding by the apparatus, at least two extra to-be-selected motion information sets that satisfy a preset condition to the candidate motion information list, wherein respective extra to-be-selected motion information sets are added to the candidate motion information list until a quantity of candidate motion information sets in the at least one candidate motion information list is equal to a preset quantity value, or until all extra to-be-selected motion information sets have been traversed (Robert Fig. 23 and pars 118-119 note additional spatial positions A’ and B’ as extra-to-be-selected motion information sets from the neighboring CUs to the left and/or top of the top left corner of the current CU, note par. 118 that these are ‘additional’, or extra affine motion information sets each of which comprises a set of 3 control point motion vectors as noted in par. 9, note Fig. 23 and par. 119 indicating that if the number of affine motion set candidates in a candidate list is less than a maximum size of 5or 7 the two ‘additional’ affine motion information sets may be added to the list, and after adding the two additional candidates the candidate list construction process ends whether or not the list has reached maximum size);
wherein a respective extra to-be-selected motion information set comprises extra to-be-selected motion vectors of at least two control points of the current image block (Robert pars 118-119 note ‘additional’ affine merge motion information candidates, each of which comprises a set of 3 control point motion vectors as noted in par. 9);
wherein a respective extra to-be-selected motion vector of a respective control point is a motion vector of an inter-coded image block adjacent to the current image block (Robert Fig. 23 note determining if the ‘additional’ CU is coded in Affine mode further note pars 81-85 Affine mode predicts a current frame from a reference frame at a different time and is thus an ‘inter’ coding mode).
It is noted that Robert does not disclose that the preset condition includes a requirement that all control points in each of the extra-to-be-selected motion information sets have the same reference frame index. However, Huang teaches a set of conditions for considering affine merge motion information candidates that includes determining whether all the control point motion vectors of an affine merge candidate have the same reference frame index, and if not, marking the candidate as unavailable (Huang par. 39 note third modification requiring that reference pictures of the control point motion vectors Mv0, Mv1 and Mv2 are all the same otherwise the merge candidate is marked as not available).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including a check that each of the control point motion vectors of the affine merge motion information candidates of Robert have the same reference picture, and thus reference picture index, in order to be considered valid affine merge candidates as suggested by Huang in order to reduce the complexity of the affine merge selection process as suggested by Huang (Huang par. 28).
It is further noted that neither Robert nor Huang disclose a requirement that motion vectors of at least two control points of a respective extra to-be-selected motion information set are different from each other. However Chen teaches determining whether control point motion vectors of a motion information set are identical and, if so, ensuring that the motion vectors are not identical (Chen pars 175-176 note determining if the control point motion vectors of an affine motion model are identical, and if so adding offsets to ensure that the motion vectors are different).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating the teachings of Chen in the invention of Robert and Huang in order to improve the coding efficiency of affine MVP sets as suggested by Chen (Chen pars 175-176).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses that when a quantity of candidate motion information sets in the candidate motion information list is less than the preset quantity value, filling the candidate motion information list with a third preset candidate motion information set until the quantity of candidate motion information sets in the candidate motion information list is equal to the preset quantity (Robert Figs. 23-24 pars 120-137 note par. 120 adding temporal candidates from preset locations if the size of the candidate list has not reached a maximum value, further note pars 125-137 adding mean and average value candidates).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses that the neighboring affine image block of the current image block is located at predetermined locations or a predetermined location on a left side and/or an upper side of the current image block (Robert Fig. 21 and par. 117 note neighboring affine blocks from specific locations considered for Affine merge particularly note positions A and B for examples of left and upper side locations).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses that the extra to-be-selected motion information set comprises the extra to-be-selected motion information of the at least two control points of the current image block, the extra to-be-selected motion information of each control point in the at least two control points comes from an image block at a specific location adjacent to the control point, and an inter prediction mode is used for the image block at the adjacent specific location (Robert Figs 21-23 note par. 118 ‘additional’, or extra spatial neighbors which are considered if the size of the candidate set is less than a preset maximum size value, further note Fig. 9 and pars 88-92 an affine merge candidate set comprises 3 control point motion vectors, finally note pars 81-85 Affine mode predicts a current frame from a reference frame at a different time and is thus an ‘inter’ coding mode).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses parsing a bitstream, to obtain an index value and a motion information difference, wherein the first index value is an index value of a motion information predictor of a control point of the current image block int the candidate motion information list, (Robert pars. 93-96 note decoding an index indicating the selected candidate motion set);
obtaining the motion information predictor of the control point from the candidate motion information list based on the first index value (Robert Fig. 9 and pars 88-92 note par. 89 obtaining control point motion vectors from the selected neighboring block, also note par. 104 the multiple affine merge mode candidate list uses the same derivation process as the prior affine merge mode);
determining motion information of the control point based on the motion information predictor of the control point and the motion information difference (Robert par. 89 note equation 1 determining the control point motion vectors for the current block based on the predictors from the neighboring blocks i.e. v2 and v3 and the motion information difference in terms of the size differences between the blocks); and
determining prediction pixels of the current image block based on the motion information of the control point (Robert par. 82-83 and 90 note determining the affine motion field for 4x4 sub-blocks which is used to determine prediction pixels in the reference frame).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses obtaining and parsing a bitstream, to obtain a second index value, wherein the second index value is an index value of motion information set of a control point of a current image block in the candidate motion information list (Robert pars. 93-96 note decoding an index indicating the selected candidate motion set also note Figs. 1-4 and par 57 the coding method of Robert codes a plurality of blocks hence a second current block may be coded using the proposed affine merge mode of Fig. 23 and thus a second index value may be obtained) ;
obtaining the motion information set of the control point from the candidate information list based on the second index value (Robert Fig. 9 and pars 88-92 note par. 89 obtaining control point motion vectors from the selected neighboring block, also note par. 104 the multiple affine merge mode candidate list uses the same derivation process as the prior affine merge mode); and
determining prediction pixels of the current image block based on the motion information of the control point (Robert par. 82-83 and 90 note determining the affine motion field for 4x4 sub-blocks which is used to determine prediction pixels in the reference frame).
In regard to claim 19 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses that generating the candidate motion information list comprises sequentially performing a first processing process on neighboring image blocks of a current image block in a first preset order, until the quantity of candidate motion information sets in the candidate motion information list is equal to a first preset value or until all neighboring image blocks of the current image block have been traversed (Robert Fig. 23 note checking blocks neighboring block in a preset order to determine if affine motion information is available from each neighboring block, also note neighboring blocks are checked until number of candidate sets in the candidate motion list is equal to a maximum value or until all neighboring blocks have been checked), wherein the first processing process comprises:
determining candidate motion information of x control points of the current image block based on motion information of x control points of a respective neighboring image block (Robert Fig. 23 note determining whether a neighboring block is available and in Affine mode, further note Fig. 9 and pars 88-92 affine merge mode which use candidate sets of 3 control point motion vectors hence determining to use the affine information of a neighboring block to predict a current block selects the motion information set of the 3 control point motion vectors); and
storing, in the candidate motion information list, a candidate motion information set including the candidate motion information of the x control points of the current image block, where x is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Robert Fig. 23 note adding the candidate motion information set of 3 control point motion vectors from a neighboring block to a motion information candidate list).
In regard to claim 22 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Robert further discloses that the extra to-be-selected motion information set comprises a first extra to-be-selected motion vector of a first control point and a second extra to-be-selected motion vector of a second control point, wherein the first control point and the second control point are neighboring control points of the current image block (Robert Fig. 9 and pars 88-92 affine merge mode which use candidate sets of 3 control point motion vectors [candidate motion information set] further note Fig. 6 showing first and second control point motion vectors as ‘neighboring’ control points of a current block).
Claims 7-12 describe an apparatus that implements steps substantially corresponding to the method described in claims 1-6 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1-6 above for the rejection of claims 7-12 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
In particular regard to claim 7 Robert further discloses a memory and a processor for executing instructions that cause the apparatus to implement the process steps within the apparatus (Robert Fig. 26 note processor 2610 and memory 2620).
Claims 13-18 describe a non-transitory computer readably medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform steps substantially corresponding to the method described in claims 1-6 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1-6 above for the rejection of claims 13-18 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
In particular regard to claim 13 and 12 Robert further discloses a non-transitory medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor (Robert fig. 26 note memory 2620).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Huang and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chuang et al (2019/0028731).
In regard to claim 21 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that neither Robert nor Huang disclose a preset condition for adding extra to-be-selected motion vectors that the control point vectors are different. However, Chuang discloses determining whether to include affine motion information set candidates in a candidate list based on whether the control point motion vectors of the affine motion information set are different from the affine motion information of other sets in the candidate list (Chuang par. 156).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating an affine candidate difference requirement as taught by Chuang in the invention of Robert and Huang in order to gain the advantage of eliminating duplicate affine candidates that provide no increase in compression efficiency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2423
Prosecution Insights