DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
3. Claim 1, is currently pending.
Double Patenting
4. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claim 17 of the (former Application for Patent No. No. 18/242,133) now issued patent US 12,238,278 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as being based on the rationale for double patenting determination further set.
Specifically, the rationale determining the herein rejection is based on the matter where the difference between the claims would be obvious when considering the instant claim 1, reciting a “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium ….”, which may find a similar reference at the conflicting patent “memory…”, and also by findings associating the recited limitations representing the same matter and scope of a decoder being reversely implemented at an encoder’s prediction loop.
Precedence is found in; “A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Corrective action is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
5. Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over CHEN J. et al., (hereinafter Chen): "Algorithm description of Joint Exploration Test Model 6 (JEM6)", JVET MEETING; 31-3-2017 - 7-4-2017; HOBART; (THE JOINT VIDEO EXPLORATION TEAM OF ISG/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 AND ITU-T SG and Kenji Kondo (hereinafter Kondo) (US 2020/0059657)-IDS, in view of Jinhan Song et al., (hereinafter Song) (US 2013/0034153).
Re Claim 1. Chen discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (memory Ch.2.1.1, Pg.3), the bitstream including an encoded signal and syntax information (flag is signaled for mode selection Sec.2.2.1, or an index are signaled in the bitstream, Sec.2.4.3.1, ) according to which a decoder (according to intra, Sec.2.2 and inter prediction Sec.2.3, modes selected as part of a decoding process, Sec.2.3.9) performs:
selects a mode from among a plurality of modes each for deriving a motion vector (selecting from a plurality of inter-prediction coding modes, used for deriving a MV for the current block Ch.2.3.1.1; 2.3.1.2), and derives a motion vector for a current block via the mode selected (in Fig.18 selecting a motion vector vo , MVP of the AF_INTER prediction mode for the blocks A, B, or C, Sec,.2.3.6, Pg.21); and
performs inter prediction decoding on the current block, using the motion vector derived (performing inter affine or merge modes Pg.5 at encoder implementation Sec.2.1.2, code lines in Fig.2 selecting from a plurality of inter-prediction coding modes, used for deriving the MV for the current block Ch.2.3.1.1; 2.3.1.2; for Merge, Ch.2.3.6 for Affine, or Ch.2.3.7 for FRUC as the second other than skip), via one of a skip mode (one mode being the skip mode Sec.2.1.2, Pg.6) and a non-skip mode that is different from the skip mode (or selecting the MV in Affine, FRUC or AMVP inter modes conditional non-Skip mode Ch.2.1.2, and Ch.2.3 different from Skip Pg.5), wherein
the plurality of modes include a plurality of first modes each for predicting the motion vector for the current block based on a decoded block neighboring the current block (the plurality of modes include a plurality of first modes each for predicting the motion vector for the current block based on an encoded block neighboring the current block without encoding information indicating a motion vector into a stream Ch. 2.3.1.1; Ch.2-3.1,2 for MERGE; Ch. 2.3.6 for Affine or Ch. 2.3.7 for FRUC) without decoding information indicating a motion vector difference from the bitstream (obtaining the MV without transmission of additional information Sec.2.3.9 e.g., in merge DMVR mode, no additional syntax is transmitted, Sec.2.3.9, Pg.29),
in the skip mode, out of information indicating whether a second mode included in the plurality of first modes is used and information indicating whether a third mode that is included in the plurality of first modes (in skip mode a flag or other syntax is not transmitted or signaled, when other transform AMT of other prediction modes flag is non-zero, Pg.30 e.g., when a second mode of (g.) Affine flag mode, Sec.2.1.2 Pg.5) and different from the second mode is used, only the information indicating whether the third mode is used is decoded from the bitstream (a third mode as FRUC or merge mode is signaled in the stream, by a flag (d.) FRUC flag, or (h.) Merge flag, Sec.2.1.2 Pg.5),
in the non-skip mode, the information indicating whether the second mode is used and the information indicating whether the third mode is used are decoded from the bitstream (in non-skip mode, e.g., the mode (g.) Affine flag mode is used, information of third mode is also signaled in the stream by a flag per (d.) FRUC flag, or (h.) Merge flag, Sec.2.1.2 Pg.5), and
when the second mode is used, the current block is decoded via the non-skip mode regardless of presence or absence of a residual coefficient (the non-skip mode is used when a second mode of (g.) Affine flag mode is signaled, Sec.2.1.2 Pg.5).
However the art to Kondo additionally teaches about, classifying the inter-prediction residual coding in skip and non-skip mode (Fig.10 indicates the various mode selection form the first, second and third modes being applied in non-skip mode by respective flags and being signaled according to skip or non-skip inter prediction modes per Fig.1, described in detail at Par.[0068]-[0071], [0075]-[0082]).
The ordinary skilled would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to associate the residual coefficients having non-zero values by which a decision to apply the non-skip mode and in case of there are no non-zero residual coefficients to code in skip mode found in Chen, to find predictable to combine with the residual inter-prediction coding in skip and non-skip mode taught by Kondo.
Furthermore, the art to Song discloses the conditions under which the residual transform quantized coefficients, are whether non-zero or zero and accordingly signal a SKIPX flag to decoder for decoding the respective block/sub-block in SKIP or non-SKIP mode, (Par.[0303 and Fig. 33).
In view of the common teachings of Chen and Kondo the ordinary skilled in the art would have been determine to seek other prediction methods by which contributing to increased coding efficiency as identified in Song; (Par.[0368]), thus finding the combination predictable.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0049837; US 2014/0219356; US 2018/0278950; US 2013/0142259; US 2015/0312588; US 2013/0034154; WO-2012070857-A2; JP 2005348093 A.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DRAMOS . KALAPODAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/