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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "The apparatus of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted to as “The apparatus of claim 22”.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 22-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, 20-22, of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,170,758. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. For example:
U.S. Patent No. 12,170,758
Instant Application: 18/935362
1. An apparatus for processing video data, comprising: memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors being configured to:
22. (New) An apparatus for processing video data, comprising: memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors being configured to:
determine that an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) mode is enabled for a current subblock of a block within a bi-directional slice (B-slice) of video data;
determine that an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) mode is enabled for a current subblock of a block within a bi-directional slice (B-slice) of video data;
for at least one neighboring subblock adjacent to the current subblock: determine that a first condition, a second condition, and a third condition are met,
for at least one neighboring subblock adjacent to the current subblock: determine that a first condition, a second condition, and a third condition are met,
the first condition comprising that a reference picture list for uni-prediction of the current subblock was used to predict the at least one neighboring subblock, the reference picture list including an indication of reference pictures that can be used for the uni-prediction of the current subblock;
the first condition comprising that a reference picture list used for uni-prediction of the current subblock was used to predict the at least one neighboring subblock, the reference picture list including an indication of reference pictures that can be used for the uni-prediction of the current subblock;
the second condition comprising that identical one or more reference pictures are used to determine motion vectors associated with the current subblock and the at least one neighboring subblock; and
the second condition comprising that identical one or more reference pictures are used to determine motion vectors associated with the current subblock and the at least one neighboring subblock; and
the third condition comprising that a first difference between horizontal motion vectors of the current subblock and the at least one neighboring subblock and a second difference between vertical motion vectors of the current subblock and the at least one neighboring subblock do not exceed a motion vector difference threshold, wherein the motion vector difference threshold is greater than zero; and
the third condition comprising that a first difference between horizontal motion vectors of the current subblock and the at least one neighboring subblock and a second difference between vertical motion vectors of the current subblock and the at least one neighboring subblock do not exceed a motion vector difference threshold, wherein the motion vector difference threshold is greater than zero; and
based on the determination that the OBMC mode is enabled for the current subblock and the determination that the first condition, the second condition, and the third condition are met, determine not to use motion information of the at least one neighboring subblock for motion compensation of the current subblock.
based on the determination that the OBMC mode is enabled for the current subblock and the determination that the first condition, the second condition, and the third condition are met, determine not to use motion information of the at least one neighboring subblock for motion compensation of the current subblock.
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 38-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 8-11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,758. 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. 12,170,758
Instant Application: 18/935362
6. The apparatus of claim 1, the one or more processors being configured:
38. (New) The method of claim 35, further comprising:
determine to use a local illumination compensation (LIC) mode for an additional block of video data; and
determining to use a local illumination compensation (LIC) mode for an additional block of video data; and
based on the determination to use the LIC mode for the additional block, not signal information associated with an OBMC mode for the additional block.
based on the determination to use the LIC mode for the additional block, not signaling information associated with an OBMC mode for the additional block.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 8-11 of the Remarks that claims 2-21 are canceled and newly added claims 22-41 overcome the rejections in the previous office action, dated 11/20/25.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that new claims 22-41 introduce double patenting and 112(b) issues as detailed in the above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parallel Overlapped Block-Matching Motion Compensation Using MPI and OpenMP, Pschernig et al. (previously attached)
US 2019/0273943 A1, Zhao et al., Systems and Methods for Performing Motion Compensation for Coding of Video Data
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 on (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