Beachshere
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 .
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, 6, and 12 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 12 which recites the limitation, “… obtaining application direction-indication information that indicates an L0 direction, an L1 direction, or both L0 and L1 direction. It is unclear from the claims what is intended to represent the application direction-indication information. Further regarding claim 1, which recites “… “generating, corresponsive to the current block..” it is unclear how the generating is related to being corresponsive to the current block.
Claims 2-5, 7-11 are found to be indefinite based upon the claim dependency.
The term “optimal” in claim 6 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 7-11 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0380893 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “… a computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a video encoding method …” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the encoding method. MPEP 2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the encoding steps). The structure includes the data in compressed form manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP 2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP 2111.05 (III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 12 merely serves as support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP 2111.05(III). Thus, the scope of claim 12 is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0380893 A1),where Lee discloses in paragraph [0026], “.. a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method according to an embodiment of the present invention.. ).
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:
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0380893 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “… a computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a video encoding method …” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the encoding method. MPEP 2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the encoding steps). The structure includes the data in compressed form manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP 2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP 2111.05 (III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 12 merely serves as support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP 2111.05(III). Thus, the scope of claim 12 is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0380893 A1),where Lee discloses in paragraph [0026], “.. a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method according to an embodiment of the present invention.. ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0360277 A1).
As per claim 1, Jeong teaches a method performed by a video decoding device for generating motion vectors of a current block, the method comprising: generating, by using merge mode, bi-directional motion vector predictors of the current block (fig. 21; [0260-261]), wherein the bi-directional motion vector predictors include an L0-directional motion vector predictor and an L1-directional motion vector predictor (fig. 21, [0260-0263]); generating, corresponsive to the current block, a motion vector difference that is uni-directional by using a merge mode with motion vector differences ([0260]; “… when a prediction direction of the current block is bi-direction, the merge motion vector difference may be included in the bitstream only for one uni-direction”); obtaining application direction-indication information that indicates an L0 direction, an L1 direction, or both L0 and L1 directions ([0263], [0266] and fig. 21-22); and generating bi-directional motion vectors of the current block (fig. 21) by applying the motion vector difference to the L0-directional motion vector predictor, the L1-directional motion vector predictor, or the bi-directional motion vector predictors in accordance with the application direction-indication information ([0225], [0260], [0263], “… The inter-prediction performer 1720 according to an embodiment may determine the motion vector of the current block by applying the merge motion vector difference to the base motion vector. According to an embodiment, when a prediction direction of the current block is bi-direction, the merge motion vector difference may be included in the bitstream only for one uni-direction”… “However, in the merge motion vector difference mode, the motion vector difference may be applied to each of the base motion vector 2125 and the base motion vector 2135 in the L1 direction, based on the differential direction index”)
As per claim 2, Joeng teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Jeong teaches decoding the application direction-indication information from a bitstream (fig. 18; [0297]).
As per claim 5, Jeong teaches wherein generating the bi-directional motion vectors includes: in response to the applying the motion vector difference to the bi-directional motion vector predictors, applying the motion vector, applying the motion vector difference equally to each of the bi-directional motion vector predictors ([0263], “… the merge motion vector difference mode, the motion vector difference may be applied to each of the base motion vector 2125 and the base motion vector 2135 in the L1 direction, based on the differential direction index and the differential distance index”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-4 and 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al., (U.S. Patent No. 12058339 B2), “Method and Device for Image Coding Using Motion Vector Differences”
Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0174286 A1), “Image Encoding/Decoding Method and Apparatus, and Recording Medium for Storing Bitstream”
Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0116651 A1), “Imaging Coding Method and Apparatus Using Motion Vectors”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486