DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is in response to application no. 19/025,207 filed on 01/16/2025. 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 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12219146 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of pat.‘146.
Table 1 below shows the comparison between the current claims 1-7 and the claims 1-7 of pat.‘146. The current claims 8-20 recite the limitation analogous to claims 1-7, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 1-7.
Table 1
Current claims
Pat. No. US 12219146 B2 claims
1. A method for video decoding performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: obtaining a coding block of a video bitstream; determining whether a joint coding of motion vector difference (JMVD) is used for predicting the coding block; obtaining, based on determining that the JMVD is used for predicting the coding block, an indication of the scaling factor, among a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD, from the video bitstream; reconstructing the coding block based on deriving a motion vector difference (MVD) jointly for at least two reference frame lists based on an application of the scaling factor to one or more components of the JMVD along one or more pre-defined directions; and reconstructing the coding block based on at least the derived MVD.
1. A method for video coding performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: obtaining a coding block of a video bitstream; determining whether a joint coding of motion vector difference (JMVD) is used for predicting the coding block; obtaining, based on determining that the JMVD is used for predicting the coding block, a plurality of scaling factors and the JMVD from the video bitstream; deriving a motion vector difference (MVD) for at least one reference frame list based on an application of the plurality of scaling factors to one or more components of the joint notion vector difference along one or more pre-defined directions; and reconstructing the coding block based on at least the derived MVD, wherein deriving the MVD comprises determining whether a flag indicates that at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to a first pre-defined default value.
2. The method for video decoding according to claim 1, wherein the MVD is derived further based on any of a distance between references frames and a current frame.
2. The method for video coding according to claim 1, wherein the MVD is derived further based on any of a distance between references frames and a current frame.
3. The method for video decoding according to claim 2, wherein deriving the MVD comprises determining whether a flag indicates that at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to a first pre-defined default value, wherein the at least one of the scaling factors is used to derive an MVD from the JMVD for one of the reference frames, and wherein an other one of the scaling factors, used to derive an MVD from the JMVD for a second one of the reference frames, is set to a second pre-defined default value.
3. The method for video coding according to claim 2, wherein the at least one of the scaling factors is used to derive an MVD from the JMVD for one of the reference frames, and wherein an other one of the scaling factors, used to derive an MVD from the JMVD for a second one of the reference frames, is set to a second pre-defined default value.
5. The method for video coding according to claim 1, wherein deriving the MVD comprises: determining whether a first flag indicates that at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to a first pre-defined default value, and determining, based on determining that the first flag indicates that the at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to the first pre-defined default value, whether the scaling factors are applied to at least one direction, of the MVD and of the pre-defined directions, based on a value of a second flag.
4. The method for video decoding according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the scaling factors is based on obtaining at least one flag signaled into the video bitstream, and the at least one flag indicates the scaling factors for at least one of the components along the one or more pre-defined directions.
4. The method for video coding according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the scaling factors is based on obtaining at least one flag signaled into the video bitstream, and the at least one flag indicates the scaling factors for at least one of the components along the one or more pre-defined directions.
5. The method for video decoding according to claim 1, wherein deriving the MVD comprises: determining whether a first flag, jmvd_scale_factor flag, indicates that at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to a first pre-defined default value, and determining, based on determining that the first flag indicates that the at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to the first pre-defined default value, whether the scaling factors are applied to at least one direction, of the MVD and of the pre-defined directions, based on a value of a second flag.
5. The method for video coding according to claim 1, wherein deriving the MVD comprises: determining whether a first flag indicates that at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to a first pre-defined default value, and determining, based on determining that the first flag indicates that the at least one of the scaling factors is not equal to the first pre-defined default value, whether the scaling factors are applied to at least one direction, of the MVD and of the pre-defined directions, based on a value of a second flag.
6. The method for video decoding according to claim 5, wherein deriving the MVD comprises applying the one or more scaling factors equally to the pre-defined directions based on determining that the second flag indicates the pre-defined directions.
6. The method for video coding according to claim 5, wherein deriving the MVD comprises applying the one or more scaling factors equally to the pre-defined directions based on determining that the second flag indicates the pre-defined directions.
7. The method for video decoding according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the scaling factors comprises obtaining an indices of the scaling factors in a look-up table, wherein the look-up table indicates that at least one pair, at a first one of the indices, of the scaling factors has a same scaling factor value in the pre-defined directions, and wherein the look-up table indicates that at least a second pair, at a second one of the indices, of the scaling factors has different scaling factor values between ones of the pre-defined directions.
7. The method for video coding according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the scaling factors comprises obtaining an indices of the scaling factors in a look-up table, wherein the look-up table indicates that at least one pair, at a first one of the indices, of the scaling factors has a same scaling factor value in the pre-defined directions, and wherein the look-up table indicates that at least a second pair, at a second one of the indices, of the scaling factors has different scaling factor values between ones of the pre-defined directions.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11936903 B2 in view of Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of pat.‘903 meets the limitation of current claim 1 except the feature of “one or more components of the JMVD along one or more pre-defined directions”.
However, Chen teaches “one or more components of the JMVD along one or more pre-defined directions” (Figs. 13, ¶0160: L0 motion vector, L1 motion vector. ¶0122, 0250-0215: the video coder may determine the L1 MVD by scaling an absolute value of the L0 MVD using a scaling factor of N/M, where N indicates a POC distance from the L1 reference picture to the current picture and M indicates a POC distance from the L0 reference picture to the current picture).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the pat. ‘903 by incorporating the teaching of Chen in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen: ¶0251).
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation analogous to claim 1, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 1, 8 and 15.
Table 2 below shows the comparison between the current claim 1 and claim 1 of pat. ‘903.
Table 2
Current claims
Pat. No. US 11936903 B2 claims
1. A method for video decoding performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: obtaining a coding block of a video bitstream; determining whether a joint coding of motion vector difference (JMVD) is used for predicting the coding block; obtaining, based on determining that the JMVD is used for predicting the coding block, an indication of the scaling factor, among a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD, from the video bitstream; reconstructing the coding block based on deriving a motion vector difference (MVD) jointly for at least two reference frame lists based on an application of the scaling factor to
1. A method for video coding performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: obtaining a coding block of a video bitstream; determining whether a joint coding of motion vector difference (JMVD) is used for predicting the coding block; obtaining, based on determining that the JMVD is used for predicting the coding block, a list of scaling factors and the JMVD from the video bitstream; deriving a predicted scaling factor based on the list of scaling factors; deriving a motion vector difference (MVD) for a reference list based on at least the joint motion vector difference and the predicted scaling factor; reconstructing the coding block based on the derived MVD.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “an indication of the scaling factor, among a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD, from the video bitstream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the scaling factor” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining a coding block for a video bitstream… obtaining…an indication of the scaling factor, among a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD, from the video bitstream”. It is unclear whether only “an indication” of the scaling factor, among a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD is obtained from the video bitstream or both “an indication” of the scaling factor and “a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD” are obtained from the video bitstream, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “wherein an other one of the scaling factors, used to derive an MVD from the JMVD for a second one of the reference frames, is set to a second pre-defined default value”. The use of the phrase “an other” creates ambiguity as to whether it refers to one additional scaling factor, or any remaining scaling factors within a plurality of scaling factors. Furthermore, the phrase “an other” is grammatically incorrect, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “whether the scaling factors are applied to at least one direction, of the MVD and of the pre-defined directions, based on a value of a second flag.” It is unclear whether the “direction” is one direction selected from “the MVD” and “the pred-defined direction”, or it is common to both the MVD” and “the pred-defined direction”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “wherein deriving the MVD comprises applying the one or more scaling factors equally to the pre-defined directions based on determining that the second flag indicates the pre-defined directions.” The use of the term “equally” creates ambiguity as to whether it means different scaling factors are applied “equally”, or whether identical scaling factors applied to the pre-defined directions, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 10 and 17 recite the limitation analogous to claim 3, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 12 and 18 recite the limitation analogous to claim 5, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Claims 13 and 19 recite the limitation analogous to claim 6, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “obtaining a coding block for a video bitstream…determining, based on determining that the JMVD is used for predicting the coding block, a plurality of scaling factors and the JMVD from the video bitstream an indication of the scaling factor, among a plurality of scaling factors for the JMVD, from the video bitstream”. The limitation “determining…a plurality of scaling factors and the JMVD from the video bitstream an indication of the scaling factor” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is actually being determined and what data is obtained from the bitstream. Furthermore, the limitation fail to establish a clear relationship between “a plurality of scaling factors” and “the scaling factor”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 further recites “encoding the coding block based on a motion vector difference (MVD) set jointly for at least one two reference frame lists based on an application of a scaling factor, of a plurality scaling factors, to one or more components of the JMVD along one or more pre-defined directions” (claim 8, lines 9-12). It is unclear whether the recited “a scaling factor” “a plurality scaling factors” the same as “a plurality of scaling factors” and “the scaling factor” (claim 8 lines 7-8) as previously recited in the claim, or they are different claim elements. If they are the same they should refer back to the claim element (“a plurality of scaling factors” and “the scaling factor” ) previously recited in the claim, or if they are different claim elements a different term should be used. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what the claim refers by stating “an application of a scaling factor, of a plurality scaling factors,” thereby renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 8 the phase “at least one two reference frame lists” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether the claim requires “one” or “two” reference frame lists, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “reconstructing the coding block based on at least the derived MVD”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the derived MVD” in the claim.
Independent claim 15 is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488