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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant states that a terminal disclaimer has been filed in order to traverse the non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-4. However, no such terminal disclaimer appears in the file wrapper, suggesting that such a disclaimer has not yet been filed or approved. When such a terminal disclaimer is filed and approve, the non-statutory double patenting rejection will be withdrawn.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357 in view of Pang et al. (US 2015/0016533 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Pang”).
Claim 1 of Instant Application
A decoding device, comprising:
a processor configured to:
perform, based on motion information, motion compensation on a current coding tree unit, wherein
the motion information is based on execution of an intra block copy on the current coding tree unit in a current coding tree unit line, and
the execution of the intra block copy is based on a reference range;
generate a predicted block corresponding to the current coding tree unit, wherein the reference range includes:
a set of upper coding tree units, located up to an upper right coding tree unit adjacent to an upper right side of the current coding tree unit and an upper left coding tree unit adjacent to an upper left side of the current coding tree unit, among a plurality of upper coding tree units that belongs to an upper coding tree unit line adjacent to an upper part of the current coding tree unit line; and
an adjacent coding tree unit on a left side of the current coding tree unit; and
decode, based on the predicted block, the current coding tree unit.
Claim 2 of Instant Application
The decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the current coding tree unit line and the upper coding tree unit line belong to different slices.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357
An image encoding device, comprising:
a processor configured to:
execute, based on a reference range, intra block copy on a current coding tree unit in a current coding tree unit line, wherein the reference range includes:
a set of upper coding tree units, located up to an upper right coding tree unit adjacent to an upper right side of the current coding tree unit and an upper left coding tree unit adjacent to an upper left side of the current coding tree unit, among a plurality of upper coding tree units that belongs to an upper coding tree unit line adjacent to an upper part of the current coding tree unit line; and
an adjacent coding tree unit on left side of the current coding tree unit;
generate a predicted block based on the execution of the intra block copy on the current coding tree unit; and
encode, based on the predicted block, the current coding tree unit to generate a bitstream.
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357
The image encoding device according to claim 1, wherein the current coding tree unit line and the upper coding tree unit line belong to different slices.
Table 1.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357 discloses many of the limitations
of claim 1, as shown in Table 1, above.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357 does not explicitly disclose: perform, based on motion information, motion compensation on a current coding tree unit, wherein the motion information is based on execution of an intra block copy on the current coding tree unit in a current coding tree unit line.
However, Pang discloses: perform, based on motion information, motion compensation on a current coding tree unit, wherein the motion information is based on execution of an intra block copy on the current coding tree unit in a current coding tree unit line (Pang: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0032] – [0033], disclosing devices for
encoding and decoding video content; paragraphs [0102] and [0118] – [0123], disclosing encoding
and decoding using motion compensation; paragraph [0025], disclosing use of intra block copy;
paragraphs [0046] and [0067] – [0069], disclosing coding using a coding tree unit).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the motion compensation of Pang in the device of Claim 1 of
U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357. One would have been motivated to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357 in this manner in order to improve coding gains for videos with texts, symbols, or repetitive patterns (Pang: paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,357 discloses the same limitations as
shown in Table 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore
rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore
rejected on the same premise.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,309. Although the claims at issue are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same or similar
limitations, as shown in Table 2 below. (Note that claims 3-4 are analogous to claims 1-2 and are
therefore not listed.) The primary difference between the claims is that the instant claims are drawn to execution of “an intra block copy” and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,309 are drawn to “in-
screen motion prediction.” Because intra block copy is a type of in frame motion prediction, this
difference does not render the claims of the instant application patentably distinct from the claims
of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,309.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
A decoding device, comprising:
a processor configured to:
perform, based on motion information, motion compensation on a current coding tree unit, wherein
the motion information is based on execution of an intra block copy on the current coding tree unit in a current coding tree unit line, and
the execution of the intra block copy is based on a reference range;
generate a predicted block corresponding to the current coding tree unit, wherein the reference range includes:
a set of upper coding tree units, located up to an upper right coding tree unit adjacent to an upper right side of the current coding tree unit and an upper left coding tree unit adjacent to an upper left side of the current coding tree unit, among a plurality of upper coding tree units that belongs to an upper coding tree unit line adjacent to an upper part of the current coding tree unit line; and
an adjacent coding tree unit on a left side of the current coding tree unit; and
decode, based on the predicted block, the current coding tree unit.
Claim 2 of Instant Application
The decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the current coding tree unit line and the upper coding tree unit line belong to different slices.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,309
An image decoding device, comprising:
a processor configured to:
perform motion compensation on a current coding tree unit based on motion information obtained by a decoding operation on a bitstream, wherein
the bitstream includes the motion information,
the motion information is generated based on execution of in-screen motion prediction, and
the in-screen motion prediction is executed based on a set of upper coding tree units located up to an upper right coding tree unit adjacent to an upper right side of the current coding tree unit, an upper left coding tree unit adjacent to an upper left side of the current coding tree unit, and an adjacent coding tree unit on left side of the current coding tree unit in a decoding order as a reference range, among a plurality of upper coding tree units that belongs to an upper coding tree unit line adjacent to an upper part of a current coding tree unit line;
generate a predicted image for the current coding tree unit; and
decode the current coding tree unit based on the generated predicted image.
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,309
2. The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the current coding tree unit line and the upper coding tree unit line belong to different slices.
Table 2.
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 Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571)270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights