DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitation of “medium” and “processor” provide sufficient structure to perform all claim limitations.
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).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined 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). Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,672,633 B2 (referred as ‘633 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 1 is fully defined by claims of the ‘633 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘633 patent discloses an image encoding method of encoding a target image including a luminance component and color difference components (see lines 1-3), the method comprising:
acquiring a reference image (se line 4);
selecting a bi-directional prediction or a uni-directional prediction based on a prediction mode that is explicitly or implicitly designated (see lines 5-7);
if a size of a block, which is designated as a unit of an interpolation, is equal to or smaller than a first threshold value and if the bi-directional prediction is selected, changing the bi-directional prediction to the uni-directional prediction (see lines 9-14); and
generating a predicted image by interpolating the luminance and the color difference components in the reference image according a motion vector (see lines 13-15).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,135,717 B2 (referred as ‘717 patent hereinafter).
For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘717 patent discloses an image encoding method of encoding a target image including a luminance component and color difference components (see lines 1-3), the method comprising: acquiring a reference image (se line 4); selecting a bi-directional prediction or a uni-directional prediction based on a prediction mode that is explicitly or implicitly designated (see lines 9-14 (inhibiting the bi-directional prediction and performing the uni-directional prediction)); if a size of a block, which is designated as a unit of an interpolation, is equal to or smaller than a first threshold value and if the bi-directional prediction is selected, changing the bi-directional prediction to the uni-directional prediction (see lines 9-14)); and generating a predicted image by interpolating the luminance and the color difference components in the reference image according a motion vector (see lines 5-7).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,831,891 B2 (referred as ‘891 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 1 is fully defined by claims of the ‘891 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘891 patent discloses an image encoding method of encoding a target image including a luminance component and color difference components (see lines 1-3), the method comprising:
acquiring a reference image (se line 4);
selecting a bi-directional prediction or a uni-directional prediction based on a prediction mode that is explicitly or implicitly designated (see lines 8-12);
if a size of a block, which is designated as a unit of an interpolation, is equal to or smaller than a first threshold value and if the bi-directional prediction is selected, changing the bi-directional prediction to the uni-directional prediction (see lines 13-18); and
generating a predicted image by interpolating the luminance and the color difference components in the reference image according a motion vector (see lines 5-7).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1of U.S. Pat. No. 12,177,465 B2 (referred as ‘465 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 1 is fully defined by claims of the ‘465 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘465 patent discloses an image encoding method of encoding a target image including a luminance component and color difference components (see lines 1-7), the method comprising:
acquiring a reference image (see lines 1-7 (predicted image inherently includes a reference image));
selecting a bi-directional prediction or a uni-directional prediction based on a prediction mode that is explicitly or implicitly designated (see lines 12-16 (inhibiting the bi-directional prediction and performing the uni-directional prediction));
if a size of a block, which is designated as a unit of an interpolation, is equal to or smaller than a first threshold value and if the bi-directional prediction is selected, changing the bi-directional prediction to the uni-directional prediction (see lines 12-16); and
generating a predicted image by interpolating the luminance and the color difference components in the reference image according a motion vector (see lines 1-7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
6/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights