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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a continuation application filed in which claims 1-7 are pending and ready for examination.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,125. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,125, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-7 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,125 disclose all the elements and steps of the independent claim 1 of the instant application except the feature of encoding a video bitstream for decoding by a decoder and transmitting the encoded bitstream over a channel to the decoder. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art for an encoded video bitstream to be transmitted over a channel to a decoder in order to reach more viewers. Furthermore, any person of ordinary skill in the art would see that encoding and decoding techniques and/or apparatuses are obvious variants of and dependent upon each other in order to provide a seamless video coding and viewing experience.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,921. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,921, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-7 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,921 disclose all the elements and steps of the independent claim 1 of the instant application except the feature of encoding a video bitstream for decoding by a decoder and transmitting the encoded bitstream over a channel to the decoder. However, it would be obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art for an encoded video bitstream to be transmitted over a channel to a decoder in order to reach more viewers. Furthermore, any person of ordinary skill in the art would see that encoding and decoding techniques and/or apparatuses are obvious variants of and dependent upon each other in order to provide a seamless video coding and viewing experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art made of record in regards to applicant’s claimed invention is as follows:
Na et al. (US 2017/0150165) discloses a decoding apparatus and a decoding method. The decoding apparatus includes a memory configured to store a reference image frame of a first definition that is decoded from a bit stream. The decoding apparatus further includes a decoder configured to determine, form the bit stream, a motion vector of a current block of a current image frame of a second definition, correct a size of the motion vector and a location of the current block based on a scaling factor, load, from the memory, a reference block that is the corrected motion vector away from the corrected location of the current block in the reference image frame, and decode the current image frame based on the reference block (abstract).
Motta et al. (US 2010/0002770) discloses a method and a device for selecting between multiple available filters in an encoder to provide a frame having a low error and distortion rate. For each full and sub pixel position, determining whether to use an alternative filter over the default filter during interpolation by estimating the rate distortion gain of using each filter and signaling to the decoder the optimal filter(s) applied to each full and sub-pixel position. In one embodiment, identifying a reference frame and a current frame, interpolating the reference frame using a default filter to create a default interpolated frame, interpolating the reference frame using an alternative filter to create an alternative interpolated frame, determining for each sub-pixel position whether to use the default filter or the alternative filter based on a minimal cost to generate a final reference frame (abstract).
Lainema et al. (US 2014/0092977) discloses an apparatus, a computer readable storage medium stored with code thereon for use by an apparatus, and a video decoder, for decoding a video bitstream, to derive a motion compensated prediction for an enhancement layer block based on a motion compensation process on the co-located base layer block using the same or similar motion vector of enhancement layer blocks and base layer reference pictures. In other embodiments, there is provided a method, an apparatus, a computer readable storage medium stored with code thereon for use by an apparatus, and a video encoder, for encoding a video bitstream, to derive a motion compensated prediction for an enhancement layer block based on a motion compensation process on the co-located base layer block using the same or similar motion vector of enhancement layer blocks and base layer reference pictures (abstract).
Rusanovskyy et al. (US 2020/0252653) discloses a device and method for coding video data. The device may generate filtered samples by performing, in a predicted samples domain, interpolation filtering and a second filtering from a group of one or more of: an adaptive filter, a domain transform filter, a scaler, or a local illumination compensation (LIC). The device may generate one or more of: residual data based on the filtered samples, or reconstructed samples based on the filtered samples; and code the video data based on one or more of the residual data or the reconstructed samples (abstract).
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claim 1, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claim and dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482