DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Nos.12,184,874, 11,051,032, 10,448,038, 9,584,820. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No.12,184,874 discloses a method for decoding a picture by an electronic device, comprising: obtaining a bitstream; (claim 1, decoding)
parsing a picture indicator from the bitstream; wherein the picture indicator is associated with a gradual temporal layer access (GTLA) picture, and the picture indicator is a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) unit type; (claim 1, decoding a gradual temporal layer access (GTLA) picture indicator)
obtaining the GTLA picture, wherein the GTLA picture provides temporal layer switching functionality; (claim 1, decoding the GTLA picture)
wherein pictures that follow the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to a temporal identifier of the GTLA picture do not use inter prediction from any picture that precedes the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture; and (claim 1, wherein no picture that precedes the GTLA picture in a decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to a temporal identifier of the GTLA picture is used for inter prediction when decoding pictures that follow the GTLA picture in the decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture)
wherein at least a picture that follows the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier greater than the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture is allowed to use inter prediction from at least one picture that precedes the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier greater than or equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture. (claim 1, wherein no picture that precedes the GTLA picture in a decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to a temporal identifier of the GTLA picture is used for inter prediction when decoding pictures that follow the GTLA picture in the decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture and claims 4-6)
Claims are similarly rejected over U.S. Patent Nos 11,051,032, 10,448,038, and 9,584,820.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the following amendment should be made: “a RPS short-term current after list or a RPS long-term current list. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are subject to the Double Patenting rejection as noted above. For the purposes of expedited prosecution and clarity of the record, the following is a preliminary examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability in view of the prior art that would be applicable only if all remaining rejections are overcome:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest these limitations, including the concept of a method for decoding a picture by an electronic device, comprising: obtaining a bitstream; parsing a picture indicator from the bitstream; wherein the picture indicator is associated with a gradual temporal layer access (GTLA) picture, and the picture indicator is a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) unit type; obtaining the GTLA picture, wherein the GTLA picture provides temporal layer switching functionality; wherein pictures that follow the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to a temporal identifier of the GTLA picture do not use inter prediction from any picture that precedes the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture; and wherein at least a picture that follows the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier greater than the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture is allowed to use inter prediction from at least one picture that precedes the GTLA picture in decoding order with a temporal identifier greater than or equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture..
For example, Sameulsson 2015 (US PGPub 2015/0131744; cited in parent and provided by Applicant here) teaches a system for video bitstream extraction for processing layered streams of pictures in an encoded video bitstream. ¶ 0068-0074 teach a technique associated with the HEVC and H.264/AVC video codecs for temporal layering according to a temporal identifier which provides a set of rules for video coding relating to which frames can be used to predict other frames. Specifically, pictures can be labelled Temporal Sub-layer Access (TSA) pictures and once this labelling occurs rules for inter prediction of the adjacent pictures are provided such that “if a following, according to the decoding order, access unit carries a picture with a layer identifier that is at least equal to the layer identifier of the access unit identified in step S1 this access unit is identified as an access unit that can depend on the access unit identified in step S1. This is possible since, in an embodiment, a lower layer should never depend on a higher layer” (¶ 0069). That is, frames can only be used to predict frames with a higher assigned temporal identifier. Sameulsson 2013 (US PGPub 2013/0064284 cited in parent and provided by Applicant here) is another reference related to video coding which teaches a picture label type termed Clean Random Access (CRA) pictures. There are self-contained coded pictures using intra prediction for all blocks, whereby the CRA pictures contains enough information to be decoded without relying on reference pictures. ¶ 0039 describes the rule set around for this label “coded pictures that follow the CRA picture both in decoding order and output order shall not use inter prediction from any picture that precedes the CRA picture either in decoding order or output order; and any picture that precedes the CRA picture in decoding order also precedes the CRA picture in output order.” Despite some similarities with the CRA and TSA video coding picture labels, nothing in the prior art teaches or suggests ‘decoding the GTLA picture from the bitstream, wherein no picture that precedes the GTLA picture in a decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to a temporal identifier of the GTLA picture is used for inter prediction when decoding pictures that follow the GTLA picture in the decoding order with a temporal identifier equal to the temporal identifier of the GTLA picture’ That is, the claims requirement here for images adjacent to a GTLA indicator is restricting prediction on the basis of the images having an attribute of an equal temporal identifier to a GTLA indicator and to each other and also restricting on the basis of not using pictures which precede the GTLA indicator for prediction of pictures that follow the indicator. There is nothing in prior art to suggest such a restriction and as such the claim language goes beyond the similarities of these devices and Applicant’s invention and a combination could not reasonably be made without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights