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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 13 August 2025 for application number 19/026,247. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 4/30/25; 7/21/25.
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 2-7, 10-15, 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,294. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 2, ‘294 discloses a method for video decoding, the method comprising:
receiving, in a coded video bitstream, prediction information of a current block in a current picture, the prediction information indicating that the current block including a plurality of subblocks is coded in a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) mode (claim 1);
obtaining motion vector difference (MVD) information of the current block that indicates an MVD to an initial displacement vector (DV);determining a DV of the current block based on the initial DV and the MVD of the current block, the determined DV indicating a location of a collocated block in a collocated reference picture (claim 1, where MVO corresponds to MVD);
deriving respective SbTMVP information of the plurality of subblocks based on at least motion information of corresponding subblocks in the collocated block indicated by the determined DV (claim 1); and
reconstructing the plurality of subblocks in the SbTMVP mode based on the respective SbTMVP information of the plurality of subblocks (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claim 2. ‘294 further discloses wherein the determining the DV comprises determining the DV to be a vector sum of the initial DV and the MVD (claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claim 2. ‘294 further discloses wherein the MVD information includes the MVD signaled in the coded video bitstream (claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claim 2. ‘294 further discloses wherein: the MVD information indicates at least one index indicating a magnitude of the MVD and a direction of the MVD (claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claims 2 and 5. ‘294 further discloses wherein: the at least one index includes a distance index that indicates the magnitude of the MVD that is one of a set of pre-defined distances and a direction index that indicates the direction of the MVD that is one of a set of pre-defined directions (claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claims 2, 5, and 6. ‘294 further discloses wherein: the set of pre-defined distances and the set of pre-defined directions are used in a merge motion vector difference (MMVD) mode (claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,294 in view of Takahiro et al. (JP2011009887).
Regarding claim 8, see teachings of claims 2, 5, and 6. ‘294 does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of pre-defined directions comprises four directions including a direction along an X-axis, a direction opposite to the X-axis, a direction along a Y-axis, and a direction opposite to the X-axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahiro discloses wherein the set of pre-defined directions comprises four directions including a direction along an X-axis, a direction opposite to the X-axis, a direction along a Y-axis, and a direction opposite to the X-axis (par. 48).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify ‘294 to include the teachings of Takahiro in order to divide the image (Takahiro, par. 48).
Regarding claim 9, see teachings of claims 2, 5, and 6. ‘294 does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of pre-defined distances comprises one of (i) 4 pixels and 8 pixels and (ii) 16 pixels and 32 pixels.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahiro discloses wherein the set of pre-defined distances comprises one of (i) 4 pixels and 8 pixels and (ii) 16 pixels and 32 pixels (par. 65).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify ‘294 to include the teachings of Takahiro in order to divide the image (Takahiro, par. 48).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9. The encode/decode differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2022/0078441).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses a method for video decoding, the method comprising:
receiving, in a coded video bitstream, prediction information of a current block in a current picture, the prediction information indicating that the current block including a plurality of subblocks is coded in a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) mode (pars. 222, 224, 227);
obtaining motion vector difference (MVD) information of the current block that indicates an MVD to an initial displacement vector (DV) (par. 245);
determining a DV of the current block based on the initial DV and the MVD of the current block, the determined DV indicating a location of a collocated block in a collocated reference picture (par. 223);
deriving respective SbTMVP information of the plurality of subblocks based on at least motion information of corresponding subblocks in the collocated block indicated by the determined DV (pars. 222, 227, 242); and
reconstructing the plurality of subblocks in the SbTMVP mode based on the respective SbTMVP information of the plurality of subblocks (pars. 46-47).
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights