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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Application No. 62548719, filed on 8/22/2017 and 62698801, filed on 7/16/2018 is hereby incorporated by references.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/6/2024 and 3/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12192500 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11758166 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- 189726935: - Note* bold means different in instant application
Conflicting Patented case 12192500 B2
1. An image encoder comprising:
circuitry; and a memory coupled to the circuitry; wherein the circuitry, in operation,
obtains a current block from a coding tree unit (CTU), determines whether inter prediction is to be applied to the current block,
determines whether inter prediction is to be applied to a current block,
in response to a determination that the inter prediction is to be applied to the current block, performs a partition prediction process including:
predicting first values of a set of pixels between a first partition having a non-rectangular shape and a second partition in the current block, using a first motion vector for the first partition;
predicting first values of a set of pixels between a first partition having a non-rectangular shape and a second partition in the current block, using a first motion vector for the first partition;
predicting second values of the set of pixels, using a second motion vector for the second partition; weighting the first values and the second values; and
predicting second values of the set of pixels, using a second motion vector for the second partition; weighting the first values and the second values; and
generating a prediction image for the current block using the weighted first values and the weighted second values, and
generating a prediction image for the current block using the weighted first values and the weighted second values, and
in response to a determination that the inter prediction is not to be applied to the current block, encodes the current block without using the partition prediction process.
in response to a determination that the inter prediction is not to be applied to the current block, encodes the current block without using the partition prediction process.
Similar mapping to patented case 11758166 B2.
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by Haskell (US 20090122877 A1).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 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].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed on merits, but claims 1-2 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.
Kim et al (US 20130177079 A1).
Norkin et al (US 20130294525 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