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 . 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.
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
The current application is a continuation of previously filed applications 18/371,309 (now patent # 12,200,196 B2) and 17/700,729 (now patent # 11,800,092 B2). The Examiner after reviewing the claim set dated 03/25/2025 finds that the claims are not patentably distinct from the parent applications. Also there are some bitstream issues in the independent claims. The Examiner called the Applicant to propose amendments to overcome the bitstream issues in the claim and also to request filing TD for potential allowance of the case. But the Applicant’s representative wanted to see an office action regarding the bitstream issue.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges preliminary amendments to the claims dated 03/25/2025 and enters for consideration. There were originally 20 claims numbered 1-20. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and new claims 21-34 have been added. Therefore, claims 21-24 remain pending in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/14/2025, 09/18/2025 and 01/23/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream comprising:”. Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a bitstream of a video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim may instead be recited as “A method of storing an encoded video bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the encoded video bitstream is generated by a method comprising: generating a flag…..; generating a joint delta MV …”, followed by a functional step of “storing the generated bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Similar issue exists in claim 28. All the other claims are rejected for the same reason due to their direct and/or indirect dependencies on the rejected base claim(s).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,196 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 21 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent 12,200,196 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 21 between the instant application and the patent.
19020044 (Instant Application)
12,200,196 B2 (Patent)
Claim 21
Claim 16
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, wherein, when the instructions are executed by a processor, the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: receive a video bitstream; generate, based on the video bitstream,
2
a flag indicating whether a JOINTNEWMV mode is applied for in in inter prediction of a current block in a current frame in the encoded video bitstream, wherein the JOINTNEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame is equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; and
a flag indicating whether an inter predication mode is a JOINT_NEWMV mode for a current block in a current frame, wherein the JOINT_NEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, the inter predication mode is configured as the JOINT_NEWMV mode, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame being equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; in response to the flag indicating that the inter predication mode is the JOINT_NEWMV mode, create, based on the video bitstream,
3
a joint delta MV for the current block, from which the first delta MV and the second delta MV are derived, when the flag indicates that the JOINTNEWMV mode is applied.
a joint delta MV for the current block, the first delta MV and the second delta MV being derived based on the joint delta MV; and encode the current block in the current frame based on the first delta MV and the second delta MV to obtain a coded video bitstream.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 21 is recited in a different way than the patent claim 16. However, it is clear that all the primary limitations are similar between the two. Therefore, the instant application claim 21 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 16.
Claim 28 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent 12,200,196 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 28 between the instant application and the patent.
19020044 (Instant Application)
12,200,196 B2 (Patent)
Claim 28
Claim 16
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream being generated:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, wherein, when the instructions are executed by a processor, the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: receive a video bitstream; generate, based on the video bitstream,
2
generating a flag indicating whether a JOINTNEWMV mode is to be applied for inter prediction of a current block in a current frame of a video, wherein the JOINTNEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame being equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; when the JOINTNEWMV mode is to be applied for the inter prediction of the current block,
a flag indicating whether an inter predication mode is a JOINT_NEWMV mode for a current block in a current frame, wherein the JOINT_NEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, the inter predication mode is configured as the JOINT_NEWMV mode, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame being equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; in response to the flag indicating that the inter predication mode is the JOINT_NEWMV mode, create, based on the video bitstream,
3
generating a joint delta MV for the current block, the first delta MV and the second delta MV being derived based on the joint delta MV; and encoding the current block in the current frame based on the first delta MV and the second delta MV to obtain a portion of the encoded video bitstream.
a joint delta MV for the current block, the first delta MV and the second delta MV being derived based on the joint delta MV; and encode the current block in the current frame based on the first delta MV and the second delta MV to obtain a coded video bitstream.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 28 is recited in a different way than the patent claim 16. However, it is clear that all the primary limitations are similar between the two. Therefore, the instant application claim 28 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 16.
Claims 22-27, 29-34 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 1-20 of Patent 12,200,196 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the same reasons mentioned above.
Claims 21-34 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,092 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 21 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Patent 11,800,092 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 21 between the instant application and the patent.
19020044 (Instant Application)
11,800,092 B2 (Patent)
Claim 21
Claim 14
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, wherein, when the instructions are executed by a processor, the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: receive a coded video bitstream; extract, from the coded video bitstream,
2
a flag indicating whether a JOINTNEWMV mode is applied for in in inter prediction of a current block in a current frame in the encoded video bitstream, wherein the JOINTNEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame is equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; and
a flag indicating whether an inter-predication mode is a JOINT_NEWMV mode for a current block in a current frame, wherein the JOINT_NEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, the inter-predication mode is configured as the JOINT_NEWMV mode in response to a direction relationship of the first reference frame and the second reference frame relative to the current frame indicating opposite direction, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame being equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; in response to the flag indicating that the inter-predication mode is the JOINT_NEWMV mode: extract, from the coded video bitstream,
3
a joint delta MV for the current block, from which the first delta MV and the second delta MV are derived, when the flag indicates that the JOINTNEWMV mode is applied.
a joint delta motion vector (MV) for the current block, and derive the first delta MV and the second delta MV based on the joint delta MV; and decode the current block in the current frame based on the first delta MV and the second delta MV.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 21 is recited in a different way than the patent claim 14. However, it is clear that all the primary limitations are similar between the two. Therefore, the instant application claim 21 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 14.
Claim 28 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Patent 11,800,092 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 28 between the instant application and the patent.
19020044 (Instant Application)
11,800,092 B2 (Patent)
Claim 28
Claim 14
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream being generated:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, wherein, when the instructions are executed by a processor, the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: receive a coded video bitstream; extract, from the coded video bitstream,
2
generating a flag indicating whether a JOINTNEWMV mode is to be applied for inter prediction of a current block in a current frame of a video, wherein the JOINTNEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame being equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; when the JOINTNEWMV mode is to be applied for the inter prediction of the current block,
a flag indicating whether an inter-predication mode is a JOINT_NEWMV mode for a current block in a current frame, wherein the JOINT_NEWMV mode indicates that a first delta motion vector (MV) for a first reference frame from a reference list 0 and a second delta MV for a second reference frame from a reference list 1 are jointly signaled, the inter-predication mode is configured as the JOINT_NEWMV mode in response to a direction relationship of the first reference frame and the second reference frame relative to the current frame indicating opposite direction, and a first picture order count (POC) distance between the first reference frame and the current frame being equal to a second POC distance between the second reference frame and the current frame; in response to the flag indicating that the inter-predication mode is the JOINT_NEWMV mode: extract, from the coded video bitstream,
3
generating a joint delta MV for the current block, the first delta MV and the second delta MV being derived based on the joint delta MV; and encoding the current block in the current frame based on the first delta MV and the second delta MV to obtain a portion of the encoded video bitstream.
a joint delta motion vector (MV) for the current block, and derive the first delta MV and the second delta MV based on the joint delta MV; and decode the current block in the current frame based on the first delta MV and the second delta MV.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 28 is recited in a different way than the patent claim 14. However, it is clear that all the primary limitations are similar between the two. Therefore, the instant application claim 28 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 14.
Claims 22-27, 29-34 of the instant application are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 1-17 of Patent 11,800,092 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the same reasons mentioned above..
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.
Claims 21, 28 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2016/0277762 A1).
Claim 21’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream comprising:..” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
Claim 28’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing an encoded video bitstream, the encoded video bitstream being generated:..” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"BI-DIRECTIONAL OPTICAL FLOW IN VIDEO CODING" - Zhang et al., US PGPub 2022/0201313 A1.
"MORE ACCURATE 2-TAP INTERPOLATION FILTERS FOR VIDEO COMPRESSION" - Wang, US PGPub 2020/0244971 A1.
"DYNAMIC REFERENCE MOTION VECTOR CODING MODE" - Xu et al., US PGPub 2019/0268617 A1.
"MULTI-LEVEL COMPOUND PREDICTION" - Mukherjee et al., US PGPub 2018/0270502 A1.
"FAST CODING METHOD AND DEVICE FOR AV1 CODING" - Jeong et al., KR 10-2021-0076381 A.
"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIDEO SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR INTER PREDICTION" - Jang, WO 2020/184964 A1.
"Generalized Optical Flow based Motion Vector Refinement in AV1" - Keng-Shih Lu, Sarah Parker, Debargha Mukherjee; 2021 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS); Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 26 July 2021.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. 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.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485