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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 10/30/2025.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed in response to office action dated 7/30/2025 with respect to the Double patent rejections are not persuasive. Therefore, previous Double patent rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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 1-2, 7, 10-11, 15-17, 21-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 24-25, 28-30 33-36, 39-47 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12108051 (17416361). in view of US 20170094271 A1-Liu et al (Hereinafter referred to a “Liu”)
Referring to claim 1, taking claim 1 as exemplary, although conflicting application 12108051, does not explicitly disclose what’s claimed in instant application 18805847, the inter prediction according to the prediction mode is performed using a merge list comprising a plurality of motion vectors of a plurality of spatial neighboring blocks and a motion vector of a temporal neighboring block, and an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined based on a size of Coding Tree Block (CTB) comprising the current block.
However, Liu discloses the inter prediction according to the prediction mode is performed using a merge list comprising a plurality of motion vectors of a plurality of spatial neighboring blocks and a motion vector of a temporal neighboring block ([022], wherein merge candidates are derived from spatial and temporal neighbor blocks), and an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined based on a size of Coding Tree Block (CTB) comprising the current block ([0021], wherein f neither of the spatial neighbors contains block vectors, the last two coded BVs are used to fill the block vector candidate list so that the list will contain two different entries. The last two coded BVs are initialized with (−2*CU_width, 0) and (−CU_width, 0). In order to avoid the need of a line buffer to store the previously coded BVs, any of the spatial neighboring blocks a1 and b1 and the last BVs outside the current CTU is considered unavailable).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the instant application 12108051, to combine the teachings of Liu. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the inter prediction according to the prediction mode is performed using a merge list comprising a plurality of motion vectors of a plurality of spatial neighboring blocks and a motion vector of a temporal neighboring block, and an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined based on a size of Coding Tree Block (CTB) comprising the current block to improve image quality ([0055], Liu)
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:
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 15-17, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190200038 A1-HE et al (Hereinafter referred to as “He”), ). in view of US 20170094271 A1-Liu et al (Hereinafter referred to a “Liu”)
Regarding claim 1, HE discloses a decoding method ([0011]), comprising:
determining a prediction mode for a current block ([0034]);
generating a prediction block by performing interpredicton according to the prediction mode ([0035-0036]); and
generating a reconstructed block using the prediction block ([0038]).
the inter prediction according to the prediction mode is performed using a merge list comprising a plurality of motion vectors of a plurality of spatial neighboring blocks and a motion vector of a temporal neighboring block ([0089]), and an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined (FIG. 15, 5 spatial blocks are checked; those valid BVs are added in order if (1) the spatial neighboring block is IntraBC coded and therefore has a BV, (2) the BV is valid for the current CU (for example, the reference block pointed to by the BV is not out of picture boundary and is already coded), and (3) the BV has not appeared in the current candidate list already).
He fails to disclose an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined based on a size of Coding Tree Block (CTB) comprising the current block
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses the inter prediction according to the prediction mode is performed using a merge list comprising a plurality of motion vectors of a plurality of spatial neighboring blocks and a motion vector of a temporal neighboring block ([022], wherein merge candidates are derived from spatial and temporal neighbor blocks), and an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined based on a size of Coding Tree Block (CTB) comprising the current block ([0021], wherein f neither of the spatial neighbors contains block vectors, the last two coded BVs are used to fill the block vector candidate list so that the list will contain two different entries. The last two coded BVs are initialized with (−2*CU_width, 0) and (−CU_width, 0). In order to avoid the need of a line buffer to store the previously coded BVs, any of the spatial neighboring blocks a1 and b1 and the last BVs outside the current CTU is considered unavailable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by HE to disclose an availability of each of the plurality of motion vectors of the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks is determined based on a size of Coding Tree Block (CTB) comprising the current block as taught by Liu, to improve image quality ([0055], Liu)
Regarding claim 2, He discloses the decoding method of claim 1, the motion vector selected as a candidate of the list indicates within a predetermined range determined by a slice of the current block (([0034] ; See also [0062, 80, and 120] disclosing the predetermined range is limited to the slice - a sample in the second candidate block is unavailable if any of the following is true: the sample is not yet coded, or the sample is in a different slice or in a different tile, or the sample is out of a video picture boundary).
Regarding claim 7, He discloses the decoding method of claim 3, wherein an availability is determined based on at least one of the prediction mode of the current block, a prediction mode of the spatial neighboring block, coordinates of the current block, and coordinates of the spatial neighboring block (FIG. 15, 5 spatial blocks are checked; those valid BVs are added in order if (1) the spatial neighboring block is IntraBC coded and therefore has a BV, (2) the BV is valid for the current CU (for example, the reference block pointed to by the BV is not out of picture boundary and is already coded), and (3) the BV has not appeared in the current candidate list already). .
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 10 (Encoder performs the opposite decoder, fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 15. In addition, claim 15 have been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because it recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream”. As such, claim 15 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 15 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored wherein the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See [0129])
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 10 and are applicable for claim 10. In addition, claim 16 have been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because it recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream”. As such, claim 16 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 15 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored wherein the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See[0129]).
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 21, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 25.
Conclusion
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 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