Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,020,032. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the scope of claims 1-2 of the ‘032 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘032 patent uses the term ‘supplementary merging candidate’ where the instant application uses the term ‘combine inter prediction candidate’ however claims 1-2 of the ‘032 patent further indicates that this supplementary candidate is generated by combining first and second motion vector information and is thus equivalent to the ‘combine inter prediction candidate candidate’ of the instant application. The examiner further notes that claims 1-2 of the ‘032 patent includes additional limitations not required by claims 1-4 of the instant application. However a rejection for Double Patenting is proper for a broader later filed claim in view of a narrower earlier filed claim.
Claim 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,407,930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the scope of claims 1, 2 and 9 of the ‘930 patent. The examiner notes that claims 1, 2 and 9 of the ‘930 patent includes additional limitations not required by claims 1-4 of the instant application. However a rejection for Double Patenting is proper for a broader later filed claim in view of a narrower earlier filed claim.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, , 2, 7 and 19-20of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,892. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9 of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the scope of claims 1, 2, 7 and 19-20 of the ‘892 patent. The examiner notes that claims 1, 2, 7 and 19-20 of the ‘892 patent includes additional limitations not required by claims 1-9 of the instant application. However a rejection for Double Patenting is proper for a broader later filed claim in view of a narrower earlier filed claim.
.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,057,618. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9 of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the scope of claims 1, 2, 6 and 13-14 of the ‘618 patent. The examiner notes that claims 1, 2, 6 and 13-14 of the ‘618 patent includes additional limitations not required by claims 1-9 of the instant application. However a rejection for Double Patenting is proper for a broader later filed claim in view of a narrower earlier filed claim.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 U.S. Patent No. 12,028,511. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the scope of claims 1-2 of the ‘618 patent. The examiner notes that claims 1-2 of the ‘618 patent includes additional limitations not required by claims 1-8 of the instant application. However a rejection for Double Patenting is proper for a broader later filed claim in view of a narrower earlier filed claim.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 U.S. Patent No. 12,413,707. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the claims of the instant application describe apparatus corresponding to the method claims recited in the ‘707 patent where the apparatus of claims 1-9 implement the same processes as described in the methods of the ‘707 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Won et al (WO 2010/044563 text citations made to the attached machine translation).
In regard to claim 1 discloses an image decoding apparatus (Wan Fig. 9) comprising:
a memory (Won par. 163 note memory storing programs); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor (Won par. 163 note microprocessor)configured to:
obtain inter prediction information for the current block (Won Fig. 9 and pars 162-171 particularly note par. 164 note information extractor 910 which obtains block mode information indicating either an intra coding mode or an inter coding mode)
perform an inter prediction for the current block using the obtained inter prediction information (Won par. 167 note prediction unit 940 performing inter prediction);
wherein the at least one processor, to obtain the inter prediction information for a current block further configured to:
construct merge candidates for the current block by including neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block (Won Figs 1-2 and pars 63-64 note generating a list of candidate motion vectors including at least candidates from a left neighboring block (A) a top neighboring block (B) and a top right neighboring block (C));
add a candidate generated by combining inter prediction information of a first neighboring block and inter prediction information of a second neighboring block among the neighboring blocks to the merge candidates (Won par. 64 note additional merge candidates may include an average or median motion vector of MV(A), MV(B) and MV(C) for L0 and L1 directions);
obtain at least one of merge index information indicating a merging candidate having inter prediction information corresponding to inter prediction information of the current block among the merging candidates or merge flag information indicating whether a merge mode is applied to the current bitstream (Won Fig. 9 and pars 82 and 162-171 particularly note par 168 note motion vector decoding unit 942 which obtains information indicating whether the mode is the predictable mode, or the unpredictable mode, further Fig. 5 and pars 128-137 note par. 134 predictable mode indicates that motion information can be predicted from ‘merge candidates’ in the list0 and list1 predicted motion vector lists, the unpredictable mode indicates that default predictors are used hence the predicable/unpredictable information is a ‘merge flag’); and
wherein, the inter prediction information includes motion vector information and a reference picture index (Won Fig. 9 and par. 168 note inter prediction information includes list0 and list 1 predicted motion vectors also note par. 164 inter prediction also includes index information for a reference picture)
wherein the merge index information is obtained based on the merge flag information (Note the above obtaining limitation requires only one of a merge index or a merge flag, thus the requirement for a merge index is a contingent limitation, since Won disclose the alternative merge flag the conditions precedent for requiring the merge index are not met and the limitations are not required by the claim See MPEP 2111.04(II) discussing Ex parte Schulhauser).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Won further discloses that the neighboring blocks include at least one among a top neighboring block, a left neighboring block, a top-right neighboring block or a bottom-left neighboring block adjacent to the current block (Won Figs 1-2 and pars 63-64 note using at least candidates from a left neighboring block (A) a top neighboring block (B) and a top-right neighboring block (C).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Won further discloses that the combining the inter prediction information of the first neighboring block and the inter prediction information of the second neighboring block further comprises:
setting inter prediction information related to a first reference picture list of the first neighboring block as first inter prediction information of the current block; and setting inter prediction information related to a second reference picture list of the second neighboring block as second inter prediction information of the current block (Won par. 64 note additional merge candidates may include an average or median motion vector of MV(A), MV(B) and MV(C) for L0 and L1 directions, note that computing an average and/or median vector inherently includes ‘allocating’ inter prediction information of the first through third merging candidates in both the L0 and L1 directions (note par. 60 separate candidate sets may be computed for L0 and L1) and hence allocates information from the first candidate for the L0 direction and the second candidate in the L1 direction);.
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 3 above. Won further discloses that the inter prediction information of the first neighboring block and the inter prediction information of the second neighboring block are different from each other (Won Fig. 3 note neighboring blocks with different motion vectors).
In regard to claim 5 Won discloses an image encoding apparatus (Won Fig. 8) comprising:
a memory (Won par. 158 note memory storing programs); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor (Won par. 158 note microprocessor) configured to:
determine inter prediction information for a current block (Won Fig. 7 and pars 143-156 particularly note par. 145 note block mode determination unit 710 which determines block mode information indicating either an intra coding mode or an inter coding mode);
perform the inter prediction for the current block using the determined inter prediction information (Won Fig. 7 and par. 146 note prediction unit 720 which performs inter prediction based on the determined inter prediction information); and
encode the inter prediction information for the current block (Won Fig. 7 and par. 150 note first encoder 740);
wherein the at least one processor, to encode the inter prediction information for the current block, further configured to:
construct merge candidates for the current block by including neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block (Won Fig. 7 and par. 133 note determining whether motion vectors in an intra mode are ‘predictable’ or ‘unpredictable’ based on an optimum motion vector determined form neighboring blocks);
add a candidate generated by combining inter prediction information of a first neighboring block and inter prediction information of a second neighboring block among the neighboring blocks to the merge candidates (Won par. 64 note additional merge candidates may include an average or median motion vector of MV(A), MV(B) and MV(C) for L0 and L1 directions); and
encode at least one of merge index information indicating a candidate having inter prediction information corresponding to the inter prediction information for the current block among the merge candidates or merge flag information indicating whether a merge mode is applied to the current block into the bitstream (Won pars 158-160 note determining whether motion vectors are predictable or unpredictable and encoding motion information into the bitstream).
wherein the inter prediction information includes motion vector information and a reference picture index (Won pars 158-160 note motion information includes an indication of whether the motion vector is predictable, reference picture information, motion vector information and residual information)
wherein the merge index information is encoded based on whether the merge mode is applied to the current block (Note the above obtaining limitation requires only one of a merge index or a merge flag, thus the requirement for a merge index is a contingent limitation, since Won disclose the alternative merge flag the conditions precedent for requiring the merge index are not met and the limitations are not required by the claim See MPEP 2111.04(II) discussing Ex parte Schulhauser).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 5 above. Won further discloses that the neighboring blocks include at least one among a top neighboring block, a left neighboring block, a top-right neighboring block or a bottom-left neighboring block adjacent to the current block (Won Figs 1-2 and pars 63-64 note using at least candidates from a left neighboring block (A) a top neighboring block (B) and a top-right neighboring block (C).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 5 above. Won further discloses that the combining the inter prediction information of the first neighboring block and the inter prediction information of the second neighboring block further comprises:
setting inter prediction information related to a first reference picture list of the first neighboring block as first inter prediction information of the current block; and setting inter prediction information related to a second reference picture list of the second neighboring block as second inter prediction information of the current block (Won par. 64 note additional merge candidates may include an average or median motion vector of MV(A), MV(B) and MV(C) for L0 and L1 directions, note that computing an average and/or median vector inherently includes ‘allocating’ inter prediction information of the first through third merging candidates in both the L0 and L1 directions (note par. 60 separate candidate sets may be computed for L0 and L1) and hence allocates information from the first candidate for the L0 direction and the second candidate in the L1 direction);.
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 7 above. Won further discloses that the inter prediction information of the first neighboring block and the inter prediction information of the second neighboring block are different from each other (Won Fig. 3 note neighboring blocks with different motion vectors).
Claim 9 recites an apparatus for transmitting a bitstream which substantially corresponds to the encoding apparatus described in claim 5. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 5 for the rejection of claim 9 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claim 9 Won further discloses a transmitter that transmits a bitstream (Won par. 161 note transmitting an encoded bitstream over a wired or wireless network).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481