DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of the limitation recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2 with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below:
Instant Application No. 18/991,017
U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block based on the derived merge candidates; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated rice binarization.
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block; deriving merge candidates of a current block; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model (claim 2), and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated rice binarization.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant is the corresponding image encoding method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 9 of the instant is the corresponding transmission method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claims 9 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,390 B2.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/991,072 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of the limitation recited in the Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072 with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below:
Instant Application No. 18/991,017
Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block based on the derived merge candidates; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated rice binarization.
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block based on the derived merge candidates; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the merge candidates include motion vectors of neighboring blocks of the current block, wherein the motion vector resolution information is signaled at a coding unit level, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model, wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated unary binarization.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 5 of the instant is the corresponding image encoding method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 9 of the instant is the corresponding transmission method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,072.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/991,069 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of the limitation recited in the Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069 with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below:
Instant Application No. 18/991,017
Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069
1.An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block based on the derived merge candidates; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated rice binarization.
1. 1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the motion vector resolution information is signaled at a coding unit level, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated unary binarization.
Claim 2. wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model, and wherein the context model is determined based on information on a size of the current block.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 5 of the instant is the corresponding image encoding method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 5-6 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 9 of the instant is the corresponding transmission method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9-10 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/991,049 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of the limitation recited in the Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049 with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below:
Instant Application No. 18/991,017
Co-Pending Application No. 18/991,049
1.An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block based on the derived merge candidates; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated rice binarization.
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream; deriving merge candidates of a current block; generating a merge candidate list of the current block based on the derived merge candidates; determining motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information of the current block, wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes motion vector resolution information, wherein the motion vector resolution information indicates a specific motion vector resolution among motion vector resolution candidates including an integer pel resolution, a 1/4 pel resolution and a 1/16 pel resolution, and wherein the motion vector resolution information is based on a truncated unary binarization.
2. wherein the motion vector resolution information is entropy decoded based on a context model…
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 5 of the instant is the corresponding image encoding method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 5-6 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,069.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 9 of the instant is the corresponding transmission method with the limitations of the image decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 9-10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9-10 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18/991,049.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0294522 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Encoding/Decoding Images Using A Motion Vector”
Kondo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0254687 A1), “Encoding Device and Encoding Method, And Decoding Device and Decoding Method”
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