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 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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,678 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other because:
The independent claims 1-3 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claims 1-3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,231,678 B2.
The limitations of claims 1-3 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claims 1-3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,231,678 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 1-3 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,678 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1-3 is not patentably distinct from claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,678 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2010/0195721 A1) in view of Fu et al. (US 2009/0034618 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for decoding a video signal with an image decoding([see in Fig. 2 and abstract]-a video coding method) apparatus, comprising: obtaining collocated picture information from a bitstream, wherein the collocated picture information is information specifying a picture determined as the collocated picture of a current block among reference pictures in a reference picture list([para 0020 and 0064]- when direct_spatial_mv_pred_flag is 0 (temporal mode is used for direct macroblock), motion vector (MV) and reference picture information needs to be retrieved from the co-located MBs. Specifically, the reference pictures used by the co-located MB of the co-located picture needs to be found in reference list 0 of the current slice. Therefore, the picture IDs of the reference pictures used by the co-located MB needs to be compared with those in the reference list 0 of the current slice); determining a collocated picture of the current block based on the collocated picture information ([abstract; [para 0020-0021]]- the decoder then identifies a co-located macroblock of the temporal direct prediction mode macroblock, where the co-located macroblock uses one or more reference pictures. Next, the decoder identifies one or more reference pictures in the reference picture list that match the one or more reference pictures used by the co-located macroblock, where the identifying the one or more reference pictures in the reference picture list uses local picture identifiers); deriving a temporal motion vector based on a motion vector of a collocated block corresponding to the current block in the collocated picture([para 0061]- there are two places where a determination must be made whether two pictures are the same or not. One is in the computation of co-located pictures for obtaining motion vector information of direct MBs in a B slice, and the other is in the strength computation of loop filtering),
Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein, the collocated block is determined based on either a first block including a position of the bottom-right pixel of the current block or a second block including a position of the center pixel of the current block and the collocated block is determined by scanning the first block and the second block according to a predetermined scan order; and generating a prediction motion vector candidate list for the current block by using the temporal motion vector, wherein the collocated picture information is transmitted from an encoder through the bitstream.
In an analogous art, Fu discloses wherein, the collocated block is determined based on either a first block including a position of the bottom-right pixel of the current block or a second block including a position of the center pixel of the current block and the collocated block is determined by scanning the first block and the second block according to a predetermined scan order([see in Fig. 1-2 and 3A]- in FIG.1- 2 shows associated elements for deriving the motion vectors of the direct mode bi-predictive block CurBlk, in which mvL0 and mvL1 are motion vectors to be derived for the current block CurBlk, mvCol is the motion vector of the co-located block ColBlk with respect to the mapped picture MapPic, tb is the picture order distance between the current picture CurPic and the mapped picture MapPic, and td is the picture order distance between the co-located picture ColPic and the mapped picture MapPic. Both tb and td may be derived from the picture order counts of related pictures); and generating a prediction motion vector candidate list for the current block by using the temporal motion vector, wherein the collocated picture information is transmitted from an encoder through the bitstream([Fig. 2]-to obtain the motion vectors mvL0, mvL1 and the associated reference pictures (the co-located picture ColPic and the mapped picture MapPic) as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. As can be noted from above description of FIG. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Fu to the modified system of Wu a method for decoding blocked-based digitally encoded pictures including direct mode bi-predictive blocks which would improve the efficiency to obtain the motion vectors of a direct mode bi-predictive block, and thus increase the decoding performance [Fu, para 0014].
Regarding claim 2, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 2 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 3 have been met in claim 1.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Thoreau et al., US 2009/0016439 A1, discloses coding method by picture block of a video picture sequence.
2. Segall, US 9,749,657 B2, discloses Image decoding using buffer compression for motion vector competition.
3. Chen et al., US 9,485,517 B2, discloses techniques for coding video data.
4. Sugio et al., US 8,982,953 B2, discloses methods of coding input image on a block-by-block basis using inter-picture prediction with reference to coded picture(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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 at 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487