DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/975891 is responsive to communications filed on December 10th, 2024. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending are presented for examination.
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).
Claims 1-20 inprovisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8 of copending Application No 18/150742, now US Patent 11,647,207. 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.
This is an inprovisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented. Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Conflicting Co-pending Application 18/150742
Instant Application-18/975891-
1.A method of prediction for video coding, the method comprising:
obtaining a first prediction value of a target sample through inter prediction;
obtaining a second prediction value of the target sample through intra prediction; and
based on a weighted coefficient of the first prediction value and a weighted coefficient of the second prediction value, performing weighting calculation on the first prediction value and the second prediction value, to obtain an updated prediction value of the target sample; wherein obtaining the second prediction value of the target sample through intra prediction comprises obtaining the second prediction value of the target sample based on a spatial neighboring sample by using a planar intra prediction mode only.
Claims 1, 3-8
1.A method of prediction for video coding, the method comprising:
obtaining a first prediction value of a target sample through inter prediction, wherein the first prediction value is obtained based on a merge mode;
obtaining a second prediction value of the target sample through intra prediction, wherein the second prediction value is obtained based on a spatial neighboring sample; and
based on a weighted coefficient of the first prediction value and a weighted coefficient of the second prediction value, performing weighting calculation on the first prediction value and the second prediction value, to obtain an updated prediction value of the target sample.
Claims 2-20
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 3-8 of co-pending application. That is, claims 1-20 is/are anticipated by claims 1, 3-8 of co-pending application.
Claims 1-20 inprovisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8 of copending Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing. While the instant claim recites a series of steps or acts to be performed, the claim neither transforms underlying subject matter nor is positively tied to another statutory category that accomplishes the claimed method steps, and therefore does not qualify as a statutory process. For example, it is unclear what performs, in electronic form, the steps recited in the method claim.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation “non-transitory” to the one or more storage mediums as recited in the claim(s) in order to properly render the claim(s) in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification. The Examiner also suggests that the specification may be amended to include the term ‘non-transitory one or more storage mediums” disclosed in the claims and ‘non-transitory one or more storage mediums” in specification to avoid a potential objection to the specification for a lack of antecedent basis of the claimed terminology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of prediction for video coding, the method comprising:
obtaining a first prediction value of a target sample through inter prediction [i.e. generate an inter-prediction block (S1602), Fig. 16], wherein the first prediction value is obtained based on a merge mode [i.e. deriving a motion information from a candidate block in a merge mode; paragraph. 0183, 0184, 0247, 0265];
obtaining a second prediction value of the target sample through intra prediction [i.e. generate an intra prediction block (S1604), Fig. 16], wherein the second prediction value is obtained based on a spatial neighboring sample mode [i.e. neighboring samples of a current processing block in intra-prediction mode, intra-planar mode; paragraph. 0144-0145, 0141]; and
based on a weighted coefficient of the first prediction value and a weighted coefficient of the second prediction value, performing weighting calculation on the first prediction value and the second prediction value, to obtain an updated prediction value of the target sample, wherein the weighted coefficient of the first prediction value is different from the weighted coefficient of the second prediction value [i.e. generate a joint an inter-intra prediction block by applying respective weights (S1605); paragraph. 2070-2071, 0306, 0309, Fig. 16].
Regarding claim 2, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the second prediction value is obtained using a planar intra prediction mode [i.e. intra-planar mode; paragraph. 0144-0145, 0141].
Regarding claim 4, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the first prediction value of the target sample comprises:
parsing a bitstream to obtain motion information of a to-be-processed picture block [i.e. derive motion information (S1601); Fig. 16]; and
performing motion compensation on the to-be-processed picture block based on the obtained motion information [i.e. generate a prediction block for the current process block based on the derived motion information (motion compensation); paragraph. 0192], to obtain a prediction block of the to-be-processed picture block, wherein the prediction block of the to-be-processed picture block comprises the first prediction value of the target sample [i.e. generate the inter prediction block (S1620); Fig. 16].
Regarding claim 5, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the updated prediction value of the target sample is obtained based on w1 * predP(xP, yP) and w2 * predPl(xP, yP) [i.e. equation 2; paragraph. 0309],
wherein (xP, yP) represents coordinates of the target sample, predP(xP, yP) represents the first prediction value, predPl(xP, yP) represents the second prediction value, w1 represents the weighted coefficient of the first prediction value, w2 represents the weighted coefficient of the second prediction value, w1 and w2 are preset constants, and w1 is unequal to w2 [i.e. paragraph. 0309-0315].
Regarding claim 8, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Heo et al. (US 20180249156 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method according to claim 1, before performing the weighting calculation on the first prediction value and the second prediction value, the method further comprises:
parsing a bitstream to obtain update determining indication information of the target sample; and determining that the update determining indication information indicates to update the first prediction value of the target sample [i.e. this feature is not inventive and trivial. It is just a simple indicating bit (flag) and easily modified from the prior arts].
Regarding claim 9, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Bitstream Rejection
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the DVD® optical disc “Anatomy of a Murder” (Columbia TriStar Home Video, 2000)’.
A bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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 mediums 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 “storage mediums merely serve as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage mediums storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure 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 any computer-readable medium recording medium storing a bitstream of image data in use or on sale before the effective filing date is considered prior art. Considering this, any computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of encoded image data in use or on sale before the effective filing date of 21 September 2018 is considered prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487