Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/13/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an entropy encoding unit to encode information, a prediction motion vector used to perform inter prediction in claim 1 and an entropy decoding unit to decode information, a prediction unit to generate the candidate prediction motion vector list in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06)
Claim Objections
Claim 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 4-5 include device numbers in parentheses that need to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10194167 B2, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Instant application- 1894865: - Note* bold means different in instant application
Conflicting Patented case 10194167 B2
1. A video encoding apparatus comprising:
an entropy encoding unit to encode information on a prediction motion vector used to perform inter prediction on a prediction target block among candidate prediction motion vectors comprised in a candidate prediction motion vector list; and
a prediction unit to generate the candidate prediction motion vector list by determining information on a plurality of spatial candidate prediction motion vectors from a neighboring prediction block to the prediction target block and determining information on a temporal candidate prediction motion vector based on the information on the plurality of spatial candidate prediction motion vectors,
wherein the information on the spatial candidate prediction motion vectors comprises at least one of first spatial candidate prediction motion vector availability information and a first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and at least one of second spatial candidate prediction motion vector availability information and a second spatial candidate prediction motion vector, and the information on the temporal candidate prediction motion vector comprises at least one of temporal candidate prediction motion vector availability information and the temporal candidate prediction motion vector, and
wherein the information on the plurality of spatial candidate prediction motion vectors comprises at least one of first spatial candidate prediction motion vector availability information and a first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and at least one of second spatial candidate prediction motion vector availability information and a second spatial candidate prediction motion vector, the information on the temporal candidate prediction motion vector comprises at least one of temporal candidate prediction motion vector availability information and the temporal candidate prediction motion vector, and
when at least one of the first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and the second spatial candidate prediction motion vector is unavailable or when both the first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and the second spatial candidate prediction motion vector are available and the first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and the second spatial candidate prediction motion vector are the same as each other, the prediction unit determines the information on the temporal candidate prediction motion vector by performing a process of deriving the information on the temporal candidate prediction motion vector.
the prediction processor is configured to determine the information on the temporal candidate prediction motion vector by performing a process of deriving the information on the temporal candidate prediction motion vector when at least one of the first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and the second spatial candidate prediction motion vector is unavailable or when both the first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and the second spatial candidate prediction motion vector are available and the first spatial candidate prediction motion vector and the second spatial candidate prediction motion vector are the same as each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by Haskell (US 20090122877 A1).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 7 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Haskell which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream [See Haskell; [0072]; computer readable medium for storing encoded bitstream].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8-10, 12, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20120128060 A1) in view of SUGIO et al (US 20120307903 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses a decoding method [e.g. decoder], comprising: determining motion information [e.g. FIG. 1-4; motion vectors] of a prediction target block [e.g. 410] based on motion information of a plurality of neighboring blocks of the prediction target block [e.g. mvL0; [0022]; spatially neighboring blocks]; and performing inter prediction [e.g. [0019]; inter-prediction] on the prediction target block using the motion information of the prediction target block [FIG. 5; e.g. mvL0 and mvL0b], wherein the plurality of neighboring blocks comprise a first spatial neighboring block [e.g. 420], and a temporal neighboring block [FIG. 1 and 2; e.g. 220; temporal motion vector predictor candidates; e.g. mvL0b], and motion information of the temporal neighboring block is added to a list [FIG. 2, 4-5 and 11; [0030]; e.g. list0; spatial MVP candidate vectors; e.g. mvL0 and mvL1; mvL0b] for the inter prediction for the prediction target block in a case that at least one of motion information of the first spatial neighboring block and motion information of the second spatial neighboring block is unavailable or the motion information of the first spatial neighboring block is equal to the motion information of the second spatial neighboring block [e.g. FIG. 5; [0030]].
It is noted that Lin differs to the present invention in that Lin fails to explicitly disclose the detail of the neighboring blocks.
However, SUGIO teaches the well-known concept of determining motion of a prediction target block [e.g. current block] based on motion vectors of a plurality5vectorvectors of neighboring blocks [e.g. FIG. 3 and 11; blocks A, B, C, or D], the plurality of neighboring blocks comprise a first neighboring block, a second neighboring block [e.g. FIG. 3 and 11; blocks A, B, C, or D; FIG. 1, 24, 26-27, 31, and 38; [0251-0257 and 363]].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the video coding system disclosed by Lin to exploit the well-known entropy decoding technique taught by SUGIO as above, in order to achieve an improvement in coding efficiency [See SUGIO; [0006]].
Regarding claim 9, Lin and SUGIO further disclose a plurality of candidates in a list for the inter prediction for the prediction target block is configured using motion information of the plurality of the neighboring blocks [e.g. SUGIO: FIG. 3-4 and 11; motion vector predictor candidates], and an additional candidate generated based on the plurality of the neighboring blocks is added the list [e.g. SUGIO: FIG. 3 and 11].
Regarding claim 10, Lin and SUGIO further disclose a plurality of candidates in a list for the inter prediction for the prediction target block is configured using motion information of the plurality of the neighboring blocks [e.g. SUGIO: FIG. 3-4 and 11; motion vector predictor candidates], an additional candidate is added to the list in a case that the number of the plurality of the candidates in the list is less than a maximum number of candidates of the list [e.g. SUGIO: maximum number of motion vector candidates], and the additional candidate is a candidate comprised in another list used before decoding for the prediction target block [e.g. SUGIO: FIG. 15 and 19].
Regarding claim 12, Lin and SUGIO further disclose the motion information of the prediction target block is determined using motion information of three neighboring blocks of the plurality of neighboring blocks [e.g. FIG. 3 and 11; blocks A, B, C, or D; FIG. 1, 24, 26-27, 31, and 38; [0251-0257 and 363]].
Regarding claim 14-16, this is an encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 8-10 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Lin and SUGIO further disclose the motion information of the prediction target block is determined using motion information of three neighboring blocks of the plurality of neighboring blocks [e.g. FIG. 3 and 11; blocks A, B, C, or D; FIG. 1, 24, 26-27, 31, and 38; [0251-0257 and 363]].
Claim 11 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20120128060 A1) in view of SUGIO et al (US 20120307903 A1) and PARK et al (US 20100290527 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lin and SUGIO further disclose 10 the motion vector of the prediction target block is from the motion vector of the plurality of the neighboring blocks, but Lin and SUGIO fail to disclose the detail of determining the motion vector of the prediction target block.
However, PARK teaches the well-known concept of the motion information of the prediction target block is an average of motion information of the plurality of the neighboring blocks [e.g. FIG. 3; [0055]; a median value of motion vectors of the neighboring blocks].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the video coding system disclosed by Lin to exploit the well-known entropy decoding technique taught by SUGIO and well-known video coding technique taught by PARK as above, in order to achieve an improvement in coding efficiency [See SUGIO; [0006]] and enhanced efficiency of coding [See PARK; [0013]].
Regarding claim 17, this is an encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 11 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20120128060 A1) in view of SUGIO et al (US 20120307903 A1) and Sato et al (US 20100284469 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lin and SUGIO further disclose Lin and SUGIO further disclose 20the plurality of neighboring blocks comprises a first spatial neighboring block [e.g. SUGIO: FIG. 3; block A], a second spatial neighboring block [SUGIO: block B] and a temporal neighboring block [e.g. SUGIO: co-located block], and both of motion vector of the first spatial neighboring block and motion vector of the second spatial neighboring block are available and the motion 85022096.0023C1C2C1vector of the first spatial neighboring block is not equal to the motion vector of the second spatial neighboring block motion vector [e.g. SUGIO: FIG. 4-5], but Lin and SUGIO fail to explicitly disclose the detail of the temporal neighboring block.
However, Sato teaches the well-known concept of the neighboring block comprises a first spatial neighboring block, a second spatial neighboring block and a temporal neighboring block, and the temporal neighboring block is unavailable [e.g. FIG. 6-7; S45-S47] in a case that both of motion vector of the first spatial neighboring block and motion vector of the second spatial neighboring block are available [e.g. S41; motion vectors of adjacent blocks A, B, C].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the video coding system disclosed by Lin to exploit the well-known entropy decoding technique taught by SUGIO and well-known video coding technique taught by Sato as above, in order to achieve an improvement in coding efficiency [See SUGIO; [0006]] and a decoding method which suppress deterioration of compression efficiency [See Sato; [0001]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6 are allowed on merits, but claims 1-3 and 6 are contingent upon overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejection as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (US 20110293016 A1).
CHOI et al (US 20110013697 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483