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.
Claim(s) 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 – 4, 9 – 11, and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (US 2016/0337662, hereafter Pang) in view of Lim et al (US 2019/0297325, hereafter Lim).
As per claim 2, Pang discloses a method for video decoding, comprising:
decoding prediction information of a current block from a coded video bitstream, the prediction information indicating an intra block copy mode (¶ 143; video decoder 30 may be configured to receive a bitstream that includes a syntax element indicative of whether or not a picture referring to a PPS may be present in a reference picture list of the picture itself, e.g., for the purpose of coding one or more blocks of the current picture using intra BC mode.);
selecting a resolution of a block vector difference for the current block from a set of candidate resolutions (¶ 145; Pang discloses that terms such as motion vector and block vector may be used interchangeably), the selecting including:
determining whether a first resolution included in the set of candidate resolutions is used based on a first flag, and selecting one of the remaining two resolutions included in the set based on a second flag when the first flag indicates that the first resolution is not used (¶ 166; In some examples, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may code both Intra BC MVD and Inter MVD with integer-pixel resolution when AMVR is enabled (use_integer_mv_flag=1) and may code both Intra BC MVD and Inter MVD in fractional-pixel (e.g., quarter-pixel) when AMVR is not enabled (use_integer_mv_flag=0); The examiner argues that here Pang discloses at least two candidate resolutions that vary dependent on the “use_integer_mv_flag”. This flag indicates whether an integer-pixel resolution or a fractional-pixel resolution is selected);
determining a block vector of the current block based on the selected resolution of the block vector difference and a block vector predictor of the current block (¶ 167); and
reconstructing at least one sample of the current block based on the block vector (¶ 166).
However, Pang does not explicitly teach the set of candidate resolutions including at least two fractional pixel resolutions and an integer pixel resolution.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches the set of candidate resolutions including at least two fractional pixel resolutions and an integer pixel resolution (¶ 439).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pang in view of Lim. The advantage is improving encoding/decoding efficiency.
As per claim 3, Pang discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the first flag or the second flag is a 1-bin flag (¶ 163; “use_integer_mv_flag”).
As per claim 4, Pang discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the selecting the resolution of the block vector difference comprises:
selecting a first component resolution for a first component of the block vector difference; and selecting a second component resolution for a second component of the block vector difference (¶ 148).
As per claim 5, Pang discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the selecting the first component resolution for the first component includes selecting the first component resolution for the first component of the block vector difference based on the first flag; and the selecting the second component resolution for the second component includes selecting the second component resolution for the second component of the block vector difference based on a third flag (¶ 148 and 167).
As per claim 6, Pang discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the selecting the second component resolution for the second component comprises: selecting the second component resolution for the second component of the block vector difference based on the block vector predictor (¶ 148).
As per claim 7, Pang discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the selecting the second component resolution for the second component of the block vector difference based on the second component of the block vector predictor comprises: selecting the second component resolution based on whether the second component resolution is less than or equal to a threshold (¶ 240 - 270).
As per claim 8, Pang discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: when the block vector predictor uses a resolution different from the selected resolution, adding the block vector difference to the block vector predictor without rounding the block vector predictor to calculate the block vector (¶ 240 - 270).
As per claim 9, Pang discloses The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
when the block vector predictor has a resolution different from the selected resolution, rounding the block vector predictor of the current block to the selected resolution; and adding a block vector difference to the rounded block vector predictor to calculate the block vector (¶ 164).
As per claim 10, Pang discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: modifying at least one of the block vector difference or the block vector predictor to constrain the block vector in a valid region (¶ 240 - 270).
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights