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 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that it is not clear which type of rejection was intended to be made, anticipation or obvious. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application discloses receiving at least part of a bitstream compared to the conflicting patent application that requires receiving a bitstream. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving at least part of a bitstream is a predictable variation of receiving a bitstream, and does not materially distinguish the pending claims from the parent claims. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add receiving at least part of a bitstream because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding receiving at least part of a bitstream in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before in re Karison, 136 USPO 184 (COPA 1963).
Applicant argues on Page 3, that it is not clear how the rejection can both assert the claims of this application to be not patentably distinct from those of the parent when the Office already found the claims in the parent to be patentable when those in this application are found not-patentable but both in view of the exact same reference noted in the 35 USC 102 rejection, which is traversed in applicant’s arguments. Therefore, Applicant is arguing that the 35 USC 102 rejection is arbitrary and capricious and cannot justly be maintained. See the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 USC
706. The Examiner understands Applicants arguments, but respectfully disagree. Patentability is determined based on the specific language of claims under examination. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pending claims encompass embodiments ion which a portion of the bitstream is received or processed. The allowance of the parent claims does not constitute a binding determination that Puri fails to teach the dispute limitation and each application is examined independently. In other words, the fact that Puri was considered in the parent application does not preclude its application to the instant Application by a different Examiner. Accordingly, the rejection reflects reasoned examination, which are supported by the record, and are neither arbitrary or capricious.
Applicant argues, on page 4-5, that the rejection merely suggested that there is an alleged "warp model", not that any "obtaining" is "based on the warp information and the at least one delta value" as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Puri discloses that warp type is interpreted as affine model that indicates a number of six parameters in [0046]. Puri also discloses a delta correction may fine tune a warped information in [0234]. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12088828 (17981842). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application discloses receiving at least part of a bitstream compared to the conflicting patent application that requires receiving a bitstream. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving at least part of a bitstream is a predictable variation of receiving a bitstream, and does not materially distinguish the pending claims from the parent claims. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add receiving at least part of a bitstream because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding receiving at least part of a bitstream in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before in re Karison, 136 USPO 184 (COPA 1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by US 20170013279 A1-Puri et al (Hereinafter referred to as Puri”).
Regarding claim 1, Puri discloses a method performed by a decoder ([0300], method), the method comprising:
receiving at least part of a bitstream that includes a coded picture;
obtaining warp information including a warp type indicating a number of parameters to be corrected by delta values of a warp motion for predicting a current block of the coded picture ([0046], wherein warp type is interpreted as affine model that indicates a number of six parameters);
obtaining at least one delta value from the bitstream that is a delta of at least one of the parameters ([0234], wherein a delta correction may fine tune a warped information);
obtaining a warp model based on the warp information and the at least one
delta value ([0249], global motion compensation warping model that uses affine model);
and
predicting the current block by performing warped motion compensation using the warp model ([0238], wherein forming a warped global compensated frame (using compensation) using global motion warp motion trajectories).
Regarding claim 2, Puri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the warp type is a rotation and zoom type that includes four parameters that define the warp motion ([0049], wherein zoom and rotation is interpreted as the warp type), the at least one delta value that is obtained is two delta values for correcting two parameters among the four parameters ([0235], wherein atleast two delta correction values), and the obtaining the warp model comprises correcting the two parameters based on the two delta values ([0238] forming warped global which is interpreted as a warp model).
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 1, wherein the warp type is an affine type that includes six parameters that define the warp motion ([0249], affine model involves use of six parameters), the at least one delta value that is obtained is four delta values for correcting four parameters among the six parameters ([0235], at least two delta values), and the obtaining the warp model comprises correcting the four parameters based on the four delta values ([0249}.
Regarding claim 5, Puri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein further comprising obtaining an adaptive step size of the at least one delta value ([0064], adaptive size), and the obtaining the warp model comprises obtaining the warp model based on the adaptive step size ([0249]).
Regardingn claim 6, Puri discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the obtaining the adaptive step size comprises: obtaining a scaling factor ([0183], scaling factor); and calculating the adaptive step size based on a predefined base step size and the scaling factor ([0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Puri discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the obtaining the scaling factor comprises: obtaining an index that indicates the scaling factor from among a plurality of scaling factors stored within a look-up table ([0183], scaling factor among a list, wherein x is an indicator); and obtaining the scaling factor based on the index and the look-up table (Obtaining a scaling factor based on list).
Regarding claim 8, Puri discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the obtaining the scaling factor comprises deriving a scaling factor based on a magnitude of a translation motion vector of the current block ([0198], translation motion vector).
Regarding claim 9, Puri discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the obtaining the scaling factor comprises deriving a scaling factor based on shear parameters ([0046], shearing).
Regarding claim 10, Puri discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the obtaining the adaptive step size comprises obtaining the adaptive step size based on at least one from among a block size, a prediction mode, a step size used by at least one neighboring block of the current block, one or more of predicted warp parameters ([0064]), and whether a neighboring block of the current block was coded by a warp model or a translational model ([0046]).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11, wherein at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor ([0142])
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 8 and are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 9 and are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, 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 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487