DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 have been amended.
Claims 16-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the Remarks of 12/31/2025.
The rejections issued to Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AJA), second paragraph are withdrawn on amendment.
The original rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being obvious over Adarsh Rramasubramonian et al., (hereinafter Adarsh) (US 2014/0003538) and Youngil Seo (hereinafter Seo) (US 2017/0201751) in view of Dazhong Zhang et al., (hereinafter Zhang) (US 2017/0359590), would be overcome by the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer to the conflicting patents and the application would be advanced according to the Allowable Subject Matter (herein identified at Point 5.).
The Double Patenting rejection (ODP) is maintained based on the revised rationale further provided.
Double Patenting
4. Claim 1 of this Application No. 18/663,185 are patentably indistinct from claim 1 of the US issued Patent No. 11,985,318 and claim 21 of the issued US 11,595,652 Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the conflicting claims are not identically recited, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the instant applications when considered in whole, is generic to all that is anticipatively recited in claims 1 and 21 of the conflicting issued patents.
Specifically, the limitations representing the decoding process are obviously performed at the prediction loop (i.e., the decoder) of the claimed encoding method and apparatus of the instant claim 1, therefore the conflicting patents represent the generic coding process performed at the claimed encoder and which would have been obviously further transmitting the bitstream to a destination device.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1, 6 and 11, are objected to, but would be allowable if overcome the Double Patenting Rejection, herein sustained post amendment.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Specifically, the independent claims indicate allowable subject matter by reciting inter alia;
“decoding the first picture by forming a first list of active reference pictures from previously decoded pictures
decoding the second picture by forming a second list of active reference pictures from the previously decoded pictures
decoding the subsequent picture by forming a subsequent list of active reference pictures from the decoded pictures
in response to at least one parameter in the signaling information, changing the indication of the long term reference picture IDR from inactive to active as a reference picture and including the long term reference IDR picture in the third list, and
decoding a block from the subsequent picture using the long term reference IDR picture; and
transmit the encoded bitstream over a channel to a decoder “.
In summary, an encoding method and apparatus is claimed, for decoding a bitstream data at the prediction loop represented of a subsequent picture to be stored in third list of active reference pictures reciting; “ in response to at least one parameter in the signaling information, changing the indication of the long term reference picture IDR from inactive to active as a reference picture and including the long term reference IDR picture in the third list, and decoding a block from the subsequent picture using the long term reference IDR picture;”, then in response to at least one parameter in the signaling information, changing the indication of the long term reference IDR picture from inactive to active as a reference picture and by including the long term reference IDR picture in a third subsequent list and decoding a block from the subsequent pictures using the long term reference IDR picture.
However, while the relevant prior art of record to Adarsh (US 2014/0003538) at Par.[0003, 0033, 0035, 0060], teaches the encoding and transmitting method along with signaling data for identifying the ling-term reference pictures, including SPS/PPS at Par.[0061-0070] etc., is partially performing the claimed decoding limiting steps, it rather fails to expressly address the process above identified as allowable.
The cited prior arts of record, when considered independently or in combination, do not teach or suggest all of the feature limitations recited at the independent claims.
The claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15, originally rejected, would also be allowed based on the dependency to their base claims 1, 6 and 11 respectively.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 DAVE J CZEKAJ. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487