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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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, 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,490,077 in view of US 2020/0014950 A1 (“Abe”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another. For example:
U.S. Patent No. 11,490,077
Instant Application: 18/792534
Note: underlined fonts mean differences in instant application
1. A method of decoding an image, the method comprising:
1. (Currently Amended): A method of decoding an image, comprising:
See limitations below:
“wherein, in response to a case where the current block is divided into two partitions, at least one of which has a triangular shape”
and see claim 3:
“wherein whether to divide the current block into the two partitions, the at least one of which has the triangular shape, is derived based on a coding parameter, and wherein the coding parameter includes a size of the current block.”
based on a ratio between a width of a current block and a height of the current block being less than a defined ratio, determining that diagonal division is used for the current block in the image;
based on that the diagonal division is used for the current block, dividing the current block into a plurality of partitions, the plurality of partitions including a first partition and a second partition;
constructing a merge candidate list of a current block;
constructing a merge candidate list of the current block;
deriving motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list and a merge candidate index; and
deriving motion information for the current block based on the merge candidate list; and
performing inter prediction of the current block based on the derived motion information,
performing inter prediction on the current block based on the motion information,
wherein, in response to a case where the current block is divided into two partitions, at least one of which has a triangular shape, a pixel of the current block is predicted by applying predetermined weights to a pixel belonging to a first reference block of the first partition and a pixel belonging to a second reference block of the second partition,
wherein a pixel of the current block is predicted by applying predetermined weights to a pixel belonging to a first reference block of the first partition and a pixel belonging to a second reference block of the second partition,
wherein the predetermined weights include a first weight to be applied to the first reference block and a second weight to be applied to the second reference block,
wherein the predetermined weights include a first weight to be applied to the first reference block and a second weight to be applied to the second reference block, and
wherein each of the first and the second weights is one of 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, or 8, and wherein a sum of the first and second weights is equal to 8.
wherein a sum of the first weight and the second weight is equal to 8.
Although the Patent claims “wherein, in response to a case where the current block is divided into two partitions, at least one of which has a triangular shape” (claim 1) and further claims “wherein whether to divide the current block into the two partitions, the at least one of which has the triangular shape, is derived based on a coding parameter includes a size of the current block” (claim 3), it does not specifically claim “based on a ratio between a width of a current block and a height of the current block being less than a defined ratio”. Abe however, teaches based on a ratio between a width of a current block and a height of the current block being less than a defined ratio (e.g. see paragraph [0555]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the Patent with Abe in order to objectively decide whether to partition an image block or not.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,265,543 in view of US 2020/0014950 A1 (“Abe”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,671,619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another. For example:
U.S. Patent No. 11,671,619
Instant Application: 18/792534
Note: underlined fonts mean differences in instant application
1. A method of decoding a video, comprising:
1. (Currently Amended): A method of decoding an image, comprising:
See limitations below:
“wherein the current block is divided, based on a predetermined division line, into a plurality of partitions including a first partition and a second partition, wherein at least one of the first partition or the second partition has a triangular shape”
and limitations of claim 2 and claim 3:
“2. The method of claim 1, wherein the division is performed based on a flag indicating whether to divide the current block into the plurality of partitions.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the flag is derived based on a predetermined encoding parameter, and wherein the encoding parameter includes at least one of a slice type, a type of an inter mode, a block size/shape, or a ratio of a width and a height of a block.”
based on a ratio between a width of a current block and a height of the current block being less than a defined ratio, determining that diagonal division is used for the current block in the image;
based on that the diagonal division is used for the current block, dividing the current block into a plurality of partitions, the plurality of partitions including a first partition and a second partition;
determining a merge candidate of a current block in the video; constructing a merge candidate list of the current block based on the merge candidate;
constructing a merge candidate list of the current block;
deriving motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and
deriving motion information for the current block based on the merge candidate list; and
performing inter prediction of the current block using the motion information,
performing inter prediction on the current block based on the motion information,
wherein the current block is divided, based on a predetermined division line, into a plurality of partitions including a first partition and a second partition, wherein at least one of the first partition or the second partition has a triangular shape,
wherein a pixel of the current block is predicted using at least one of a first prediction block or a second prediction block of the current block,
wherein the motion information of the current block is derived for each of the first partition and the second partition,
wherein the first prediction block is obtained based on the motion information of the first partition and the second prediction block is obtained based on the motion information of the second partition,
wherein a pixel at a first position in the current block is predicted using only one of the first prediction block or the second prediction block, and
wherein a pixel at a second position in the current block is predicted by weighted average of a pixel in the first prediction block and a pixel in the second prediction block.
wherein a pixel of the current block is predicted by applying predetermined weights to a pixel belonging to a first reference block of the first partition and a pixel belonging to a second reference block of the second partition,
wherein the predetermined weights include a first weight to be applied to the first reference block and a second weight to be applied to the second reference block, and
7. The method of claim 1, wherein a weight for the weighted average is one of [7:1], [6:2], [4:4], [2:6], or [1:7].
wherein a sum of the first weight and the second weight is equal to 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 6-8 of the Remarks that in view of the amendments the application is in condition for allowance because it overcomes the prior art.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the amendments introduce double patenting issues. See detailed rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200288150 A1, Jun et al., METHOD AND DEVICE FOR IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING ON BASIS OF ASYMMETRIC SUB-BLOCK
US 20210352334 A1, Lim et al., APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR VIDEO ENCODING OR DECODING
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights