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 .
Claims 1-4 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025; 02/12/2025; 03/25/2025; 06/12/2025; 08/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12519949 in view of AONO (US 20200177911 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, U.S. Patent No. 12519949 discloses
obtaining information for a collocated picture and residual information through a bitstream; deriving the collocated picture based on the obtained information (Claim 1: residual information and collocated picture);
deriving a sub-block based temporal merge candidate of a current block based on a collocated block in a collocated picture (Claim 1);
generating a sub-block based merge candidate list based on the sub-block based temporal merge candidate of the current block (Claim 1);
deriving a motion vector for each of a plurality of sub-blocks of the current block based on the sub-block based merge candidate list (Claim 1); and
deriving prediction samples of the plurality of sub-blocks of the current block based on the motion vector for each of a plurality of sub-blocks (Claim 1),
wherein a location of the collocated block is a location in the collocated picture moved based on a motion vector of a spatial neighboring block of the current block from a location in the collocated picture that corresponds to the location of the current block (Claim 1).
U.S. Patent No. 12519949 does not explicitly claim wherein the spatial neighboring block of the current block is a left neighboring block of the current block. However, in an analogous art, AONO discloses wherein the spatial neighboring block of the current block is a left neighboring block of the current block (the neighboring PUs include spatial neighboring PUs of the decoding target PU, such as a left PU [0559]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of AONO and apply them to U.S. Patent No. 12519949. One would be motivated as such as a tile sequence can be independently decoded without reducing coding efficiency.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ESENLIK (US 20200137413 A1).
Regarding claim 3, a bit stream generated by a method, the method 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(I)(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 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which 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 ESENLIK which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0028]).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is directed to an image decoding/decoding method performed by a decoding/encoding apparatus for generating a reconstructed picture based on prediction samples and residual samples.
The combination of the prior art does not teach or suggest a specific implementation with the following distinct properties that include:
wherein a location of the collocated block is a location in the collocated picture moved based on the motion vector of the spatial neighboring block of the current block from a location in the collocated picture that corresponds to a location of the current block.
Closest prior art listed below either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
RAUT (US 20210195185 A1) teaches a method for coding a segment of an inter frame. The method includes partitioning, by a partitioning unit, a current frame into a plurality of segments. Further, the method includes coding, by a coding unit, a current spatial block at a boundary of a segment included among the plurality of segments by deriving at least one new temporal motion information predictor candidate from a reference frame. Further, the method includes cabac context initialization at the start of each non-first segment from the plurality of segments by deriving temporal stored cabac context from the reference frame.
AONO (US 20200177911 A1) teaches a video encoding device or a video decoding device for performing a spatial-temporal prediction process by deriving a motion vector of a target block, based on a spatial neighboring block or a temporal neighboring block, the image decoding device or the video encoding device including: a unit configured to determine whether or not a reference pixel is present within a tile sequence on a reference picture, the reference pixel being referred to in a case of deriving a motion compensation image by using a motion vector of the target block; and a unit configured to derive a pixel value of the motion compensation image, based on a pixel value within the tile sequence, in a case that the reference pixel is not present within the tile sequence, wherein a position of the temporal neighboring block is a block including any one of lower right coordinates within a collocated block, lower left coordinates of a right neighboring block of the collocated block, and upper right coordinates of a lower neighboring block of the collocated block.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 57127227384. 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.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights