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 . 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 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. There are a total of 10 claims and claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2024 and 09/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 33,35,47, 48,50, 51, 53, 54,58, 60, 61, 63 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,834 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other because:
The independent claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 of the current application include broader limitations of the claims 33, 35, 48, 50, 51, 53 and 61 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,184,834 B2.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claims 33, 35, 48, 50, 51, 53 and 61 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,184,834 B2.
The limitation of claim 2,5,7 and 9 of the current application can be read on limitations of claims 47, 58, 60 and 63 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,184,834 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 1-10 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 33,35,47, 48,50, 51, 53, 54,58, 60, 61, 63 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,834 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claims 1-10 is not patentably distinct from claim 33,35,47, 48,50, 51, 53, 54,58, 60, 61, 63 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,834 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUANG et al. (2018/0199057) in view of Ching-Yeh Chen et al. (NPL-Description of SDR video coding technology proposal by MediaTek; given by the applicant in the IDS, hereinafter as Chen).
Regarding claim 1, CHUANG a decoding method comprising: decoding at least one first block level parameter for a current block ([see in Fig. 8]-decoding current block); disabling a Bi-directional Optical flow mode allowing refining a motion of samples of a block based on an optical flow for the current block responsive to the at least one decoded first block level parameter indicates generalized bi-prediction weights are not equal to default weights; and decoding the current block([para 0022]- Bi-directional optical flow (BIO) or Decoder-side MV refinement (DMVR), to refine motion are disclosed. According to one method of the present invention, a target motion-compensated reference block associated with the current block in a target reference picture from a reference picture list is determined, where the target motion-compensated reference block includes additional surrounding pixels around a corresponding block of the current block in the target reference picture for performing interpolation filter required for any fractional motion vector of the current block).
However, CHUANG does not explicitly disclose disabling a Bi-directional Optical flow mode allowing refining a motion of samples of a block based on an optical flow for the current block responsive to the at least one decoded first block level parameter indicates generalized bi-prediction weights are not equal to default weights
In an analogous art, CHAUNG discloses disabling a Bi-directional Optical flow mode allowing refining a motion of samples of a block based on an optical flow for the current block responsive to the at least one decoded first block level parameter indicates generalized bi-prediction weights are not equal to default weights([see in section:2:4:9]-Bi-directional optical flow(BIO) is proposed in VCEG-AZ07 ad adopted in JEM. The concept of BIO is to utilize the assumption of optical flow and steady motion to further refine the final predictor in bi-prediction. The decoding process of the BIO in this proposal is similar to the BIO in JEM07.0. A block-based design of BIO is used instead of the sample-based designed. The block size is adaptively switched between 2x2 and 4x4, according to the video resolution and OMBC condition. If the video resolution is smaller than or equal to 720P or the current MC block is used for OBMC process, the BIO sub-block size 2x2. Otherwise, the BIO sub-block is set to 4x4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Chen to the modified system of CHUANG to provide a video codec with higher compression capability than HEVC, especially for ultra high definition (UHD) and full high-definition (FHD) video contents. To achieve this goal, a number of tools are proposed covering several aspects of video compression technology, including coding block structure, inter/intra prediction, transform, quantization, in-loop filtering [Chen; abstract].
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses further comprising disabling generalized bi-prediction or setting generalized bi-prediction weights to default weights responsive to a size of the block is below a predetermined value([see in section: 2.4.7]- Generalized bi-prediction (GBi) is proposed in JVET-C0047. The concept of GBi is to allow using different weights for predictors from LO and Ll, respectively, instead of using equal weights in traditional bi-prediction).
Regarding claim 3, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 3 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 4 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 6 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 8 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 9 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. CHEN et al., US 2018/0249172 A1, discloses extending the BIO to more general cases, or applying BIO adaptively to improve performance or reducing complexity.
2. Hsu et. al., US 2018/0041769 A1, discloses motion vector restoration for decoder-side predictor refinement.
3. Li et al., US 2017/0094305 A1, discloses techniques for coding (e.g., encoding or decoding) video data.
4. CHEN et al., US 2019/0045215 A1, discloses using the BIO selectively for certain conditions to improve performance or reduce complexity for using the BIO techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487