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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-2 which recites, “… the one motion model used to code all of the blocks in the first region being, in increasing order of complexity, one of translational motion, 4-parameter affine motion or 6-parameter affine motion …” It is unclear if the one motion model used to code all of the blocks in the first region is selected from one of translational motion, 4-parameter motion, or 6-parameter affine motion…”
Claims 1-2 recites the limitation "the motion model of the first region of global motion" in claims 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,252 (herein referenced as Kalva)in view of Zhou et al., (U.S. 2017/0332095 A1).
As per claim 1, Kalva teaches a decoder configured to (claim 20,col. 26 line 4): receive a bitstream including a coded picture (claim 20, col. 26 line 5, “receive a bitstream including a coded picture”), the coded picture including a first region having global motion and comprising a first contiguous plurality of coding blocks and a second region having local motion and comprising a second contiguous plurality of coding blocks (claim 20, col. 26 line 5-10; “the coded picture including a first region having global motion and comprising a first contiguous plurality of coding blocks and a second region having local motion and comprising a second contiguous plurality of coding blocks”) the first region being coded with one motion model (claim 20, col. 26 lines 10-11; “the first region being coded with one motion model”), the one motion model used to code all of the blocks in the first region being (claim 20, col. 26 lines 11-12; “the one motion model used to code all of the blocks in the first region being”), in increasing order of complexity, one of translational motion, 4-parameter affine motion or 6-parameter affine motion, the complexity of motion model being a function of the number of motion vectors needed to inter-code a block using the motion model (claim 20, col. 26 lines 12-17; “in increasing order of complexity, one of translational motion, 4-parameter affine motion or 6-paramter affine motion, the complexity of a motion model being a function of the number of motion vectors needed to inter-code a block using the motion model”), decode the coded picture including the first contiguous plurality of coded blocks and the second contiguous plurality of coded blocks using a motion model for each block of the picture (claim 20, col. 26 lines 18-21; “decode the coded picture including the first contiguous plurality of coded blocks and the second contiguous plurality of coded using a motion model for each block of the picture”), the motion model for each block having a complexity that is no greater than the complexity of the motion model of the first region of global motion (claim 20, col. 26 lines 21-24; “the motion model for each block having a complexity that is no greater than the complexity of the motion model of the first region of global motion”). Kalva does not explicitly disclose to store the decoded picture in a buffer.
However, Zhou teaches the known concept to store the decoded picture in a buffer ([0104] and fig 3. el.82; “.. the decoded video blocks in a given frame or picture are then stored in reference picture memory 82, which stores reference pictures used for subsequent motion compensation. Reference picture memory 82 also stores decoded video for later presentation on a display device, such as display device 32 of fig. 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou with Kalva for the benefit of preserving video data for later presentation. In addition, one would have been prompted to incorporate the teachings of Zhou with Kalva for the benefit to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently, [0003].
As per claim 2, Kalva teaches a method of transmitting an encoded bitstream which is decodable by a decoder receiving the bitstream, comprising: receiving an input video signal (claim 21, col. 26 line 26; “receive a bitstream including a coded picture”); generate an encoded bitstream including a coded picture (claim 21, col. 26 line 26), the coded picture including a first region having global motion and comprising a first contiguous plurality of coding blocks (claim 21 and col. 26 lines 26-29; ”the coded picture including a first region having global motion and comprising a first contiguous plurality of coding blocks”) and a second region having local motion (claim 21 col. 26 line 29; “and a second region having local motion”) and comprising a second contiguous plurality of coding block (claim 21, col. 26 lines 29-31; “and a second contiguous plurality of coding blocks”), the first region being coded with one motion model (claim 21, col. 26 lines 31-32; “the first region being coded with one motion model”), the one motion model used to code all of the blocks in the first region being, in increasing order of complexity, one of translational motion, 4-parameter affine motion or 6-parameter affine motion (claim 21, col. 26 lines 32-35; “the one motion model used to code all of the blocks in the first region being, in increasing order of complexity, one of translational motion, 4-parameter affine motion or 6-parameter affine motion”), the complexity of a motion model being a function of the number of motion vectors needed to inter-code a block suing the motion model (claim 21, col. 26 lines 35-38; “the complexity of a motion model being a function of the number of motion vectors needed to inter-code a block using the motion model”), decode the coded picture including the first contiguous plurality of coded blocks and the second contiguous plurality of coded blocks using a motion model for each block of the picture, the motion model for each block having a complexity that is no greater than the complexity of the motion model of the first region of global motion (claim 21, col. 26 lines 39-45; “decode the coded picture including the first contiguous plurality of coded blocks and the second contiguous plurality of coded blocks using a motion model for each block of the picture, the motion model for each block having a complexity of the motion model of the first region of global motion”). Kalva does not explicitly disclose to transmit the encoded bitstream over a channel to a decoder, wherein the decoder is configured with instructions; and store the decoded picture in a buffer.
However, Zhou teaches to transmit the encoded bitstream over a channel to a decoder, where the decoder is configured with instructions (see figs. 1 and 3); and store the decoded picture in a buffer (fig 3. el.82; “.. the decoded video blocks in a given frame or picture are then stored in reference picture memory 82, which stores reference pictures used for subsequent motion compensation. Reference picture memory 82 also stores decoded video for later presentation on a display device, such as display device 32 of fig. 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou with Kalva for the benefit of preserving video data for later presentation. In addition, one would have been prompted to incorporate the teachings of Zhou with Kalva for the benefit to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently, [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mukherjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0149841 A1), “Diversified Motion Using Multiple Global Motion Models”
Lainema et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0202596 A1), “Video Coding System”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486