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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “…a first motion vector difference; …a second motion vector difference; obtaining a first prediction block for the current block based on the first motion vector; obtaining a second prediction block for the current block based on the second motion vector; wherein difference information is explicitly signaled only for the first motion vector difference but not the second motion vector difference”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose these limitations. In other words, the applicant’s specification fails to disclose using two different motion vector difference (MVD) values for generating a final prediction block for a current where only one motion vector difference value is signaled. The examiner notes [0297] of the applicant’s specification, which most closely aligns with the claimed invention, recites “FIG. 20 shows that for the motion vector candidate set including two motion vector candidates, a first motion vector or a second motion vector is derived by adding a motion vector difference value to one motion vector candidate, and a remaining one is the same as the motion vector candidate”. The examiner is interpreting this paragraph, and more explicitly the phrase “a remaining one is the same as the motion vector candidate” to mean the remaining one of the first or second derived motion vectors is set to be the same as a candidate vector set. Further, [0298] discloses one MVD value may be shared amongst multiple motion vector candidates, but [0298] does not indicate how the second motion vector difference is obtained for deriving the second motion vector as claimed. Further, the applicant’s specification does not limit the signaling of motion vector difference information to only one motion vector difference syntax or preclude the signaling of a second motion vector difference when two motion vector difference values are used for generating a prediction block.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected for reasons similar to claim 1 above.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The claim does not specify how the second motion vector difference is obtained for deriving the second motion vector since in the claim only a single motion vector difference value is signaled. This feature is essential for performing the claimed method
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected for reasons similar to those regarding claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is directed toward a non-transitory medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream comprising….However, the claim proceeds to recite method steps for generating a prediction block and signaling motion vector difference information, rendering the claim indefinite.
.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) (US 2015/0139329).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream ([0438], [0444], a program stored on a computer readable medium is executed).
A bit stream generated by a method, the bitstream comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations 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 method steps). The structure includes the encoding blocks and information 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 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure 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 claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by the reference cited above which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0438], [0444], a program stored on a computer readable medium is executed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jang et al. (Jang) (US 2022/0038732) ([0205], [0209], a motion vector difference is signaled for L0 candidate vectors and the motion vector difference is not signaled for the L1 candidate vector list; [0275], weighted sum of prediction blocks generated from the L0 and L1 candidate set is used to generate a prediction block).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights