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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD FOR ENCODING AND DECODING IMAGE INFORMATION TO DETERMINE REFERENCE INDEX IN SKIP MODE OR MERGE MODE.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim includes a non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium that merely serves as support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05, that gives no patentable weight to the bitstream effectively omitting its base claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”) in view of US 2012/0189062 A1 (“Sugio”).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchhoffer discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus (e.g. see Fig. 2), comprising:
performing entropy decoding (e.g. see extractor 102 in Fig. 2) on received information (e.g. see coded data stream at an input 116 in Fig. 2) including indicator information (e.g. see prediction parameters 120 in Fig. 2);
performing inter-prediction on a current block based on the entropy-decoded information (e.g. see predictor 110 in Fig. 2); and
reconstructing a current picture including the current block by using a result of the inter-prediction (e.g. see reconstructed signal at output 124 in Fig. 2),
wherein in the performing of the inter-prediction, skip mode or merge mode is applied to the current block (e.g. see specifying whether the set of samples is merged, e.g. see pg. 34, ll. 1-22, pg. 36, l. 33-pg. 37, l. 12),
wherein performing the inter-prediction includes:
configuring merge candidates (e.g. see set of candidate sample sets, pg. 32, ll. 19-28) including spatial merge candidates (e.g. see blocks A and B in fig. 9a, pg. 33, ll. 4-12, pg. 36, ll. 4-18) and a temporal merge candidate (e.g. see in addition to blocks A and B in fig. 9A, a block of a previously coded picture could be used, which comprises the sample at the same position as sample 400, pg. 33, ll. 14-28, pg. 36, ll. 20-23);
selecting a merge candidate from the merge candidates based on the indicator information (e.g. see reduced set of candidate sample sets using the afore-mentioned distance measure, pg. 35, l. 30-pg. 36, l. 2; also see signaled merge_flag and merge_left_flag that identify a selected block for merging with the current block, pg. 36, l. 33-pg. 37, l. 12);
deriving motion information specified by the selected merge candidate as motion information of the current block (e.g. see signaled merge_flag and merge_left_flag that identify a selected block for merging with the current block and see that prediction parameters of the selected block are used for the current block, pg. 36, l. 33-pg. 37, l. 12), wherein the motion information of the current block includes a motion vector and a reference index (e.g. see prediction parameters, such as reference indices, and motion parameters represented by displacement vectors, pg. 1, ll. 26-33); and
generating prediction pixels (e.g. see predictor 110 in Fig. 2, pg. 13, ll. 4-10, pg. 15, ll. 9-38) for the current block (e.g. see current block X in fig. 9A, pg. 36, ll. 4-18) based on the motion vector and the reference index (e.g. see prediction parameters of the selected block are used for the current block, pg. 36, l. 33-pg. 37, l. 12; pg. 14, ll. 7-17); encoding (e.g. see entropy encoding, pg. 12, ll. 13-21).
Although Kirchhoffer discloses the reference index, it is noted Kirchhoffer differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein a value of the reference index of the temporal merge candidate is set equal to 0.
Sugio however, teaches wherein a value of the reference index of the temporal merge candidate is set equal to 0 (e.g. see a case is assumed where, as shown in figs. 9 and 13 in Embodiment 1, the adjacent blocks A, B, and C, and the co-located block have the motion vectors and the reference picture indexes. In this case, for example, as shown in fig. 60, … the value “3” of the merge index is assigned to motion vectors scaleMvL0 and scaleMvL1, … and the reference picture indexes RefIdxL0_A and RefIdxL1_A of the adjacent block A, paragraph [0317]) equal to 0 (e.g. see RefIdxL0_A and/or RefIdxL1_A in Merge Index 3 in fig. 60, paragraph [0317]; thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty in recognizing that because there are limited number of reference pictures (e.g. see fig. 1A, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], if RefIdxL0_A and/or RefIdxL1_A is set equal to 0 as illustrated in fig. 1B and fig. 1C, then the reference picture index of the temporal block indicated by Merge Index 3 is set equal to 0; in addition, Sugio discloses that RefIdxL0 and RefIdxL1 having the value “0” are always used in the direct mode, paragraph [0156] and see that this may also be performed in the merge mode, paragraph [0171]; and finally Sugio discloses that a value of a reference picture index indicating a reference picture most frequently referred o (obviously, 0 is one possibility out of limited number of reference pictures as illustrated in fig. 1A-1C), or a reference picture index which indicates a reference picture closes to the current picture in display order (e.g. reference picture index = 0 in fig. 1B is closest to current picture in display order) may be assigned, paragraph [0169] and see that this may be performed in the merge mode, paragraph [0171]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the references of Kirchhoffer, and Sugio before him/her, to modify Kirchhoffer with the teachings of Sugio in order to make it possible to derive the motion vector most suitable for the current picture and the reference picture to increase the coding efficiency.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For compact prosecution, claim 3 is included here since if the 102 rejection below is overcome by only amending to fix the non-functional claim interpretation, the claim would still be rejected under 103.
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) 3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Kirchhoffer.
Regarding claim 3, Kirchhoffer discloses a non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 2 (e.g. see at least digital storage medium, pg. 69, ll. 8-14; note: the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely serves as a support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05. No patentable weight is given to the “bitstream generated by the encoding method of claim 2”).
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 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-18 of copending Application No. 18/379344 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the copending Application are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another. For example:
copending Application No. 18/379344
Instant Application: 19/022471
Note: underlined fonts mean the difference in instant application
16. (Currently Amended) An encoding method of an inter prediction, the method comprising:
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
performing entropy decoding on received information including indicator information;
performing inter-prediction on a current block based on the entropy-decoded information; and
reconstructing a current picture including the current block by using a result of the inter-prediction,
determining, by an encoding apparatus, an inter prediction mode of a current block as a merge mode;
wherein in the performing of the inter-prediction, skip mode or merge mode is applied to the current block, wherein performing the inter-prediction includes:
constructing, by the encoding apparatus, merge candidates including spatial merge candidates and a temporal merge candidate of the current block;
configuring merge candidates including spatial merge candidates and a temporal merge candidate;
selecting, by the encoding apparatus, a merge candidate from the merge candidates;
selecting a merge candidate from the merge candidates based on the indicator information;
deriving, by the encoding apparatus, motion information of the selected merge candidate as motion information of the current block, wherein the motion information includes a motion vector and a reference index;
deriving motion information specified by the selected merge candidate as motion information of the current block, wherein the motion information of the current block includes a motion vector and a reference index; and
generating, by the encoding apparatus, prediction samples of the current block based on the motion vector and a reference picture indicated by the reference index;
generating prediction pixels for the current block based on the motion vector and the reference index,
encoding, by the encoding apparatus, information about prediction of the current block, wherein the information about the prediction includes inter prediction mode information representing the inter prediction mode of the current block and indication information indicating the selected merge candidate among the merge candidates; and
generating, by the encoding apparatus, the bitstream including the information about the prediction,
wherein a value of the reference index of the temporal merge candidate is set equal to 0.
wherein a value of a reference index of the temporal merge candidate is set equal to 0, regardless of any of values of reference indexes of spatial neighboring blocks and a temporal neighboring block.
Although the copending Application claims “An encoding method of an inter prediction”, it does not particularly claim “An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising: performing entropy decoding on received information including indicator information; performing inter-prediction on a current block based on the entropy-decoded information; and reconstructing a current picture including the current block by using a result of the inter-prediction”. Kirchhoffer however, teaches an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus (e.g. see Fig. 2), comprising: performing entropy decoding (e.g. see extractor 102 in Fig. 2) on received information (e.g. see coded data stream at an input 116 in Fig. 2) including indicator information (e.g. see prediction parameters 120 in Fig. 2); performing inter-prediction on a current block based on the entropy-decoded information (e.g. see predictor 110 in Fig. 2); and reconstructing a current picture including the current block by using a result of the inter-prediction (e.g. see reconstructed signal at output 124 in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of the copending Application with Kirchhoffer in order to achieve better rate distortion ratio.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,825,110 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,102,502 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,715,825 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,535 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,101 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
For similar reasons as above, claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,924,188 in view of WO 2011/127966 A1 (“Kirchhoffer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619