DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “A non-transitory recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a method for encoding a video signal, the method comprising:”. Claim 3 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing a bitstream of video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream was generated are recited. 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, is 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 could instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprising:”
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the usage of a merge mode index for an inter prediction process is part of the video coding standard.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,942. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the usage of a merge mode index for an inter prediction process is part of the video coding standard.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,190,767. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the usage of a merge mode index for an inter prediction process is part of the video coding standard.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,349. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the usage of a merge mode index for an inter prediction process is part of the video coding standard.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,250,880. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the usage of a merge mode index for an inter prediction process is part of the video coding standard.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,843,803. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the usage of a merge mode index for an inter prediction process is part of the video coding standard.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US Patent No. 9,451,277).
Regarding claim 1 Wang a method for performing an inter prediction, the method comprising:
determining whether merge mode is applied a current block (determine whether the prediction mode for the current PU is merge mode – Figure 4, step 204);
deriving coding information in units of a coding block (determine whether prediction mode is inter mode and inter prediction mode is merge mode – Figure 4, step 204; the video coder may determine whether the current PU is restricted to uni-directional inter prediction based on a parameter indicated in the syntax elements of the current treeblock, current CU – col.33, 42-45);
deriving motion information of the current block using the coding information (determine motion information of current PU based on motion information specified by the selected merge candidate – Figure 4, step 210); and
performing an inter prediction on the current block based on the motion
information (generate predictive video block for current PU – Figure 4),
wherein the current block is any one of sub blocks divided from the coding block (current PU – Figure 4),
wherein the coding information includes information related to merge mode (a merge candidate may be a uni-directional merge candidate of the merge candidate specifies motion information that identifies a single location in a reference picture listed in either list 0 or list 1 – col.4, 46-49),
wherein, the information related to merge mode includes merge candidates, which are derived based on a position of the coding block (one or more of the merge candidates are generated based on the motion information specified by PUs that spatially neighbor the PU in the same picture or based on a co-located PU in another picture – col.14, 16-21), and
wherein, when the coding block has a predefined size, the coding information is used for predicting motion information of the sub blocks divided from the coding block (the video coder may determine that the PU is restricted to uni-directional inter prediction of a size characteristic of a CU associated with the PU is equal to a particular size – col.17, 1-4),
wherein the motion information is derived based on the coding information and an index related to the merge mode (determine motion information of current PU based on motion information specified by selected merge candidate – Figure 4, step 210; the merge candidate may be selected based on merge_idx – col.27, 55-63; note from Fig. 4, in order to determine motion information of current PU information related to inter prediction is obtained).
Claim 2 corresponds to an encoding method that performs the inter prediction method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 3 corresponds to a memory storing a generated bitstream. Claim 3 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Wang also discloses that channel 16 in Figure 1 may correspond to a storage medium that stores the encoded video data generated by Source Device 12 (col.6, 61-63).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2482