DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 18/904,980 filed on October 2nd, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 interpretation
2. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing a bitstream comprising:
constructing a merging candidate list, adding another history-based motion vector predictor, adding a pairwise average merging candidate, and obtaining motion information of the current picture block.
These elements or contents are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the contents/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim contents/elements are not given patentable weight. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Li et al. (US Patent no. 10,362,330).
Li recites a storage medium storing a bitstream in col. 3, lines 14-27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a processor to perform the steps especially since the non-transitory medium does not include any instructions.
NOTE: The Applicant can use his/her own example of claims 13-16 where the computer-readable medium is coupled to one or mor processors.
Dependent claims 18-20 do not provide a processor coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium.
A processor is necessary to perform the different generating steps and the encoding step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US Patent no. 10,362,330).
As per claim 17, Li discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a bitstream generated by an encoding method (See Li col. 3, lines 14-27), wherein the encoding method comprises: constructing a merging candidate list of a current picture block (See Li Abstract); in response to determining that a number of merging candidates in the merging candidate list is less than a maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N (See Li col. 2, lines 44-53 and col. 5, lines 47-49)), adding another history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate in an HMVP candidate set to the merging candidate list continuously after one HMVP candidate in the HMVP candidate set is added to the merging candidate list to obtain a new merging candidate list (See Li col. 6, lines 37-44), wherein N is a positive integer; in response to determining that the number of merging candidates in the new merging candidate list is equal to the maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding a pairwise average merging candidate to the new merging candidate list to obtain a modified merging candidate list; obtaining a merge index of the current picture block; and; obtaining motion information of the current picture block based on the modified merging candidate list and the merge index; determining a predicted block of the current picture block based on the motion information of the current picture block; and encoding the merge index into the bitstream (See Li col. 15, lines 39-58).
Claims 18-20 do not provide the required processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a bitstream. These claims are considered anticipated by Li col. 15, lines 39-58 where a non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided.
A processor is necessary to perform the different generating steps and the encoding step.
Double Patenting
8. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent no. 11,765,343 to Chen et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-8 of Patent no. 11,765,343 are drawn to the same invention. Independent claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1, 5 and 7 of Patent no. 11,765,343. A close look at the instant application will show that claim independent claim 1 of the instant application, taken as a representative claim, call for an encoding method for an encoding device, the encoding method comprising constructing a merging candidate list of a current picture block; in response to determining that a number of merging candidates in the merging candidate list is less than a maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding another history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate in an HMVP candidate set to the merging candidate list continuously after one HMVP candidate in the HMVP candidate set is added to the merging candidate list to obtain a new merging candidate list, wherein N is a positive integer; in response to determining that the number of merging candidates in the new merging candidate list is equal to the maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding a pairwise average merging candidate to the new merging candidate list to obtain a modified merging candidate list; obtaining a merge index of the current picture block; obtaining motion information of the current picture block based on the modified merging candidate list and the merge index; determining a predicted block of the current picture block based on the motion information of the current picture block; and encoding the merge index into a bitstream.
Claim 1 of Patent no. 11,765,343 calls for a method for inter prediction, the method comprising: constructing a merging candidate list of a current picture block; in response to determining that a number of merging candidates in the merging candidate list is less than a maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding another history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate in an HMVP candidate set to the merging candidate list continuously after one HMVP candidate in the HMVP candidate set is added to the merging candidate list to obtain a new merging candidate list, wherein N is a positive integer; in response to determining that the number of merging candidates in the new merging candidate list is equal to the maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding a pairwise average merging candidate to the new merging candidate list to obtain a modified merging candidate list; obtaining motion information of the current picture block based on the modified merging candidate list; and determining a predicted block of the current picture block based on the motion information of the current picture block.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the current application calls for limitations similar to the limitations of claim 2 of Patent no. 11,765,343 where the claims cite “generating the pairwise average merging candidate by averaging a predefined pair of merging candidates in the new merging candidate list.”
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 of the current application contains one limitation corresponding to one the limitations of claim 2 of cited Patent 11,765,343 namely “wherein obtaining the motion information of the current picture block based on the new merging candidate list further comprises”.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1)
10. Claims 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent no. 11,765,343 to Chen et al in view of Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0112741).
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20, Chen is silent about “wherein the merge index indicates a position of the motion information of the current picture block in the modified merging candidate list.”
However, Han teaches “wherein the merge index indicates a position of the motion information of the current picture block in the modified merging candidate list” (See Han [0096] and [0098]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chen to incorporate Han’s teachings wherein the merge index indicates a position of the motion information of the current picture block in the modified merging candidate list. The motivation for performing such a modification is to improve prediction techniques in video codecs as taught by Han (See Han [0005]).
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent no. 12,132,891 to Chen et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-8 of Patent no. 12,132,891 are drawn to the same invention. Independent claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1, 5 and 7 of Patent no. 12,132,891. A close look at the instant application will show that claim independent claim 1 of the instant application, taken as a representative claim, call for an encoding method for an encoding device, the encoding method comprising constructing a merging candidate list of a current picture block; in response to determining that a number of merging candidates in the merging candidate list is less than a maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding another history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate in an HMVP candidate set to the merging candidate list continuously after one HMVP candidate in the HMVP candidate set is added to the merging candidate list to obtain a new merging candidate list, wherein N is a positive integer; in response to determining that the number of merging candidates in the new merging candidate list is equal to the maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding a pairwise average merging candidate to the new merging candidate list to obtain a modified merging candidate list; obtaining a merge index of the current picture block; obtaining motion information of the current picture block based on the modified merging candidate list and the merge index; determining a predicted block of the current picture block based on the motion information of the current picture block; and encoding the merge index into a bitstream.
Claim 1 of Patent no. 12,132,891 calls for a method for inter prediction, the method comprising: constructing a merging candidate list of a current picture block; in response to determining that a number of merging candidates in the merging candidate list is less than a maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding another history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate in an HMVP candidate set to the merging candidate list continuously after one HMVP candidate in the HMVP candidate set is added to the merging candidate list to obtain a first new merging candidate list, wherein N is a positive integer; in response to determining that the number of merging candidates in the first new merging candidate list is equal to the maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list minus N, adding a pairwise average merging candidate to the first new merging candidate list to obtain a second new merging candidate list; in response to determining that the second new merging candidate list is not full after the pairwise average merging candidate is added, inserting zero motion vector predictors (MVPs) at an end of the second new merging candidate list until the maximum number of candidates of the merging candidate list is encountered to obtain a modified merging candidate list; obtaining motion information of the current picture block based on the modified merging candidate list; and determining a predicted block of the current picture block based on the motion information of the current picture block.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the current application calls for limitations similar to the limitations of claim 2 of Patent no. 12,132,891 where the claims cite “generating the pairwise average merging candidate by averaging a predefined pair of merging candidates in the new merging candidate list.”
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 of the current application contains one limitation corresponding to one the limitations of claim 2 of cited Patent 12,132,891 namely “wherein obtaining the motion information of the current picture block based on the new merging candidate list further comprises”.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1)
12. Claims 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent no. 12,132,891 to Chen et al in view of Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0112741).
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20, Chen is silent about “wherein the merge index indicates a position of the motion information of the current picture block in the modified merging candidate list.”
However, Han teaches “wherein the merge index indicates a position of the motion information of the current picture block in the modified merging candidate list” (See Han [0096] and [0098]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chen to incorporate Han’s teachings wherein the merge index indicates a position of the motion information of the current picture block in the modified merging candidate list. The motivation for performing such a modification is to improve prediction techniques in video codecs as taught by Han (See Han [0005]).
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424