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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12225208 in view of Jeong et al. (WO 2016068685A1, corresponding US 20170339425 is used for English translation and claim mapping).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are rendered obvious by the claims of the patent. Patent claims recite all limitations found in instant claims except “obtaining, from a bitstream, first inter prediction mode permission information indicating whether a first inter prediction mode for predicting a motion vector is allowed for an upper data unit; when the first inter prediction mode is allowed for the upper data unit based on the first inter prediction mode permission information, obtaining, from the bitstream, correction distance range information indicating one of a plurality of correction distance candidate sets; when the first inter prediction mode is allowed for the upper data unit, determining whether the first inter prediction mode is applied to a current block included in the upper data unit”.
However, Jeong teaches obtaining, from a bitstream, first inter prediction mode permission information indicating whether a first inter prediction mode for predicting a motion vector is allowed for an upper data unit (see [0103], pre-set prediction mode information; see [0077]-[0079], prediction mode information of the pre-set prediction mode may be a flag about whether to use the pre-set prediction mode; see [0167]-[0168], sequences, pictures, and slices including a plurality of blocks);
when the first inter prediction mode is allowed for the upper data unit based on the first inter prediction mode permission information, obtaining, from the bitstream, correction distance range information indicating one of a plurality of correction distance candidate sets (see FIGS. 5A-5D and [0074], [0097], [0134], [0145]-[0161], determine prediction motion vector candidates according to candidate groups using pixel distances from the basic motion vector);
when the first inter prediction mode is allowed for the upper data unit, determining whether the first inter prediction mode is applied to a current block included in the upper data unit (see [0106] and [0131], the prediction mode information of the current block indicates the pre-set prediction mode);
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to include obtaining, from a bitstream, first inter prediction mode permission information indicating whether a first inter prediction mode for predicting a motion vector is allowed for an upper data unit; when the first inter prediction mode is allowed for the upper data unit based on the first inter prediction mode permission information, obtaining, from the bitstream, correction distance range information indicating one of a plurality of correction distance candidate sets; when the first inter prediction mode is allowed for the upper data unit, determining whether the first inter prediction mode is applied to a current block included in the upper data unit in order to improve video compression (Jeong; [0006]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 3 is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream without reciting any steps. Although, the claim recites “the bitstream being generated by the video encoding method of claim 2,” this does not clearly constitute steps performed by the claimed method of transmitting a bitstream since the step of generating the bitstream is not recited in the claim and the bitstream may be generated and stored by claim 2 at different time, and thus claim 3 would only be limited to transmitting the stored bitstream without performing the steps of claim 2. Therefore, in addition to all of the steps of claim 2, the steps of generating and transmitting the bitstream, which are essential, are omitted. Omitting these steps renders the claim incomplete. The examiner suggests amending the claim as follows: A method of transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising: generating the bitstream by the video encoding method of claim 2; and transmitting the bitstream.
For the purpose of prior art rejection, claim 3 is interpreted to cover any method of transmitting a bitstream.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (WO 2016068685A1, corresponding US 20170339425 is used for English translation and claim mapping).
As to claim 3, Jeong discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream, the bitstream being generated by the video encoding method of claim 2 (see [0082]; see 112(b) rejection above for the claim interpretation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the combination of elements "wherein: one correction distance set from among the plurality of correction distance candidate sets comprises a preset number of correction distance candidates, a correction distance set is selected, from among the plurality of correction distance candidate sets, according to the correction distance range information, the correction distance is indicated by the information about the correction distance, among the preset number of correction distance candidates included in the selected correction distance set, and a first correction distance candidate set, among the plurality of correction distance candidate sets, includes correction distance candidates {1, 2}, and a second correction distance candidate set, among the plurality of correction distance candidate sets, does not include the correction distance candidates {1,2}" with limitations taken within others in the claims.
Jeong et al. (WO 2016068685A1) discloses a video decoding method comprising determining prediction mode information of a current block and an index indicating a prediction candidate, determining a prediction candidate list according to the prediction mode information, when the prediction mode information of the current block indicates a pre-set prediction mode, determining a motion vector indicated by the index indicating the prediction candidate from the prediction candidate list, determining a prediction motion vector of the current block based on at least one of pieces of motion prediction information related to the motion vector, and determining a motion vector of the current block based on the prediction motion vector.
Chen et al. (US 20170085906) discloses a method for motion information coding using a refined Merge mode, the method comprising deriving a Merge candidate set based on the motion information associated with neighboring blocks, selecting a target Merge candidate from the Merge candidate set and signal a Merge index corresponding to the target Merge candidate, and predicting a part of the current motion information based on partial motion information associated with the target Merge candidate to generate coded motion information.
However, the various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements that make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 5712727331. 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.
/BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482