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 .
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.
This Application (18/913507)
Parent Patent (11,006,130)
[21] a method for video decoding, the method comprising:
[44] a method for video decoding method, comprising:
[21] receiving a video bitstream that comprises a video block associated with a current picture and an indication of a reference picture associated with the current picture;
[44] determining whether a current picture is associated with a pseudo reference picture representing a decoded version of the current picture;
[21] determining whether to retrieve weighted prediction parameters from the video bitstream
[48] on a condition that the picture order count associated with the current picture is different than the picture order count associated with the reference picture, reconstructing the current CU comprises applying weighted prediction to the current CU using weighted prediction parameters retrieved from a video bitstream, and wherein, based at least in part on a condition that the picture order count associated with the current picture is the same as the picture order count associated with the reference picture, weighted prediction is skipped for the current CU.
[21] based at least on a first picture order count associated with the current picture and a second picture order count associated with the reference picture;
[48] comparing a picture order count associated with the current picture to a picture order count associated with a reference picture of the current picture;
[21] and reconstructing the video block based on the determining,
[48] and reconstructing the current CU based on the comparing
[21] wherein, if the first picture order count is different than the second picture order count
[48] wherein, on a condition that the picture order count associated with the current picture is different than the picture order count associated with the reference picture
[21] the weighted prediction parameters are retrieved from the video bitstream and used to reconstruct the video block,
[48] reconstructing the current CU comprises applying weighted prediction to the current CU using weighted prediction parameters retrieved from a video bitstream
[21] and wherein, if the first picture order count is the same as the second picture order count,
[49] the method of claim 48, ...based on a condition that the picture order count associated with the current picture is the same as the picture order count associated with the reference picture
[21] and a first layer ID associated with the current picture is the same as a second layer ID associated with the reference picture
[49] based on a condition that … the layer ID associated with the current picture is the same as the layer ID associated with the reference picture
[21] retrieval of the weighted prediction parameters from the video bitstream is skipped during reconstruction of the video block
[49] weighted prediction is skipped for the current CU
[22] wherein the weighted prediction parameters are retrieved from the video bitstream and used to reconstruct the video block if the first picture order count is the same as the second picture order count but the first layer ID is different than the second layer ID.
[49] wherein weighted prediction is skipped for the current CU based on a condition that ... the layer ID associated with the current picture is the same as the layer ID associated with the reference picture.
[24] the method of claim 21, wherein, on a condition that the reference picture corresponds to a decoded version of the current picture, the method further comprises:
[44] responsive to determining that the current picture is associated with the pseudo reference picture, adding the pseudo reference picture to a first reference picture list associated with the current picture and to a second reference picture list associated with the current picture;
[24] adding the reference picture to a first reference picture list associated with the current picture;
[44] adding the pseudo reference picture to a first reference picture list associated with the current picture
[24] and adding the reference picture to a second reference picture list associated with the current picture.
[44] adding the pseudo reference picture to a ... second reference picture list associated with the current picture;
[25] the method of claim 21, further comprising:
[25] determining, based on the video bitstream, that the video block is to be coded in an intra mode and that constrained intra prediction is enabled for the video block;
[44] determining that constrained intra prediction (CIP) is enabled for a current coding unit (CU) in the current picture; determining whether the current CU is coded using an intra prediction mode
[25] and determining whether a reference sample is available for predicting the video block based on a coding mode of the reference sample, wherein, if the coding mode of the reference sample is an intra block copy mode, the reference sample is determined to be unavailable for predicting the video block.
[44] determining whether a neighboring reference sample of the current CU is available for predicting the current CU based on whether the neighboring reference sample is coded using an intra block copy (IBC) mode, wherein the neighboring reference sample is determined to be unavailable for predicting the current CU on a condition that the neighboring reference sample is coded using the IBC mode
[27] the method of claim 21, wherein the video block is reconstructed in an intra block copy mode with temporal motion vector prediction and constrained intra prediction enabled.
[44] determining that constrained intra prediction (CIP) is enabled for a current coding unit … responsive to determining at least that the current CU is coded using the IBC mode: enabling temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP) for the current CU
[35] the video decoding device of claim 28, wherein the weighted prediction parameters comprise a weight and an offset.
[50] method of claim 48, wherein the weighted prediction parameters retrieved from the video bitstream comprise a weight and an offset,
This Application (18/913507)
Parent Patent (12,155,846 )
[21] a method for video decoding, the method comprising:
See DP map of Claim 21, above
[26] the method of claim 21, further comprising:
[24] a method for video decoding, the method comprising:
[26] obtaining a chroma block vector associated with the video block,
[24] obtaining a chroma block vector associated with a current coding unit of a current picture;
[26] wherein the chroma block vector has a fractional pixel resolution;
[24] determining that, wherein the chroma block vector has a fractional pixel resolution;
[26] and determining whether reference samples are available for deriving a chroma reference sample pointed to by the chroma block vector, wherein the reference samples are determined to be available if the reference samples are located in a decoded area of the current picture and in a same slice or tile as the video block;
[24] determining whether one or more reference samples are available for deriving a chroma reference sample based on the chroma block vector, wherein the one or more reference samples are determined to be available if the one or more reference samples are located in a decoded area of the current picture and in a same slice or tile as the current CU;
[26] and based on a determination that the reference samples are available for deriving the chroma reference sample,
[24] and based on a determination that the one or more reference samples are available for deriving the chroma reference sample:
[26] deriving the chroma reference sample by applying an interpolation filter to the reference samples, wherein the video block is reconstructed based on the derived chroma reference sample.
[24] deriving the chroma reference sample for the current CU by at least applying an interpolation filter to the one or more reference samples … and decoding the current CU based on the derived chroma reference sample
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-29, 31-32, 34, 36-37, 39-40, 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 49, which includes the limitations of Claims 44 and 48, of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,130.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 50, which includes the limitations of Claims 44 and 48, of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,130.
Claims 26, 33, 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,846 in view of Claim 44 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,130. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to precede the steps of Claim 24 with the steps of Claim 48 because Claim 24 applies to IBC blocks, and claim 48 determines if a block is an IBC block, which makes the two methods symbiotic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 3/10/2026 have been considered. Double patenting remains to be addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170244966 A1 – using the layer ID and POC to determine if the block is an IBC block or an inter-layer prediction block
JCTVC-W0076 – Adding flags to the PPS to signal intra block copy
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 SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485