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 .
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, 11-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11-12 of U.S. Patent No.11553175 (17373927). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting patent anticipates instant application.
Claims 1-4, 11-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11-12 of U.S. Patent No.12238277 (18074769). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting patent anticipates instant application.
Claims 1-4, 11-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.11089298 (16617170). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting patent anticipates instant application.
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 11 and 15-16 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 11 recites the limitation "wherein said at least one operation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15-16 recites the limitation "wherein the second operation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”)
Regarding claim 1, Chien discloses a method (Fig. 14-18), comprising:
encoding a video signal using a candidate list ([0036], encoding using candidate list) by:
performing an operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate ([0086])
determining whether said motion vector predictor candidate is present in a candidate list ([0140-141])
responsive to determining that said motion vector predictor candidate is not present in the candidate list, adding said motion vector predictor candidate to the candidate list. ([0138]; [0141], if motion vector does not refer to the same reference picture (interpreted as not being available), the motion vector may be scaled (modified) before being added to the candidate list; [0143] discloses adding motion vectors to the candidate list. The examiner would like to note several things with this particular claim. This limitation recites a conditional statement. The limitation appears to rather recite operations which are performed when the specific cases are met and does not specify any actions which are taken when the specific cases are not met or any specific determination to be performed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adding” step or act need not be performed if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Natl Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)): Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest scenario, the step dependent on the “if’ conditional would not be invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in order to render the claim obvious. In other words, one would infringe claim 1 by performing all steps other than the step of “if said at least one modified candidate is not present in the candidate list.” “That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889))).
Chien fails to disclose performing a rounding operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses performing a rounding operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate ([0131], wherein motion vector candidates from spatial and temporal blocks may be rounded)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien to disclose performing a rounding operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate as taught by Li, to improve coding efficiency ([0037], Li).
Regarding claim 2, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 2, wherein decoder(Chien Fig. 1, element 30. The decoder performs the opposite of the encoder).
Regarding claim 3, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 3, wherein memory (Chien, [0048], memory), processor ([0008])
Regarding claim 4, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 4, wherein memory (Chien, [0048], memory), processor ([0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Chien disclose the method of Claims 1, wherein a merge predictor comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, a reference frame list and an IC flag, are the candidates to be added to said candidate list if not previously present in said candidate list (Chien, ([0163], wherein clipping to modify the existing motion information (motion vector, reference frame index, reference picture list; [0172], clipping motion vectors; [0173], clipping motion vectors; [0174], clipping motion vectors; ([0138]; [0141], if motion vector does not refer to the same reference picture (interpreted as not being available), the motion vector may be scaled (modified) before being added to the candidate list; [0143] discloses adding motion vectors to the candidate list; The examiner would like to note several things with this particular claim. This limitation recites a conditional statement. The limitation appears to rather recite operations which are performed when the specific cases are met and does not specify any actions which are taken when the specific cases are not met or any specific determination to be performed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adding” step or act need not be performed if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Natl Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)): Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest scenario, the step dependent on the “if’ conditional would not be invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in order to render the claim obvious. In other words, one would infringe claim 1 by performing all steps other than the step of “if not previously presented.” “That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)))).
Regarding claim 9, Chien disclose the method of Claims 1, wherein a intra predictor candidate comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, a reference frame list and an IC flag, are the candidates to be added to said candidate list if not previously present in said candidate list (Chien, ([0163], wherein clipping to modify the existing motion information (motion vector, reference frame index, reference picture list; [0172], clipping motion vectors; [0173], clipping motion vectors; [0174], clipping motion vectors; ([0138]; [0141], if motion vector does not refer to the same reference picture (interpreted as not being available), the motion vector may be scaled (modified) before being added to the candidate list; [0143] discloses adding motion vectors to the candidate list; The examiner would like to note several things with this particular claim. This limitation recites a conditional statement. The limitation appears to rather recite operations which are performed when the specific cases are met and does not specify any actions which are taken when the specific cases are not met or any specific determination to be performed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adding” step or act need not be performed if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Natl Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)): Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest scenario, the step dependent on the “if’ conditional would not be invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in order to render the claim obvious. In other words, one would infringe claim 1 by performing all steps other than the step of “if not previously presented.” “That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)))).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11, for playback (Chien, [0050])
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 12, for playback (Chien, [0050])
Regarding claim 13, Chien discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said at least one operation comprises clipping, rounding, and selecting a different candidate ([0172-0174])
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 13 and are applicable for claim 14
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 17
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 9 and are applicable for claim 19
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in view of Patent 10491918 B2-Park et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 8, Chien discloses the method or the apparatus of Claim 7 (see claim 7),
Chien and Li fail to disclose wherein a second motion vector is obtained in an area not considered as a candidate for a first motion vector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses wherein a second motion vector is obtained in an area not considered as a candidate for a first motion vector (column 20, lines 10-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien and Li to disclose wherein a second motion vector is obtained in an area not considered as a candidate for a first motion vector as taught by Park, to improve performance (column 4, lines 40-50)
Claim 10 and 18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in further view of US 20170094305 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to “Li2”).
Regarding claim 10, Chien discloses the method of claim 1
Chien and Li fail to disclose wherein candidates in a frame rate up conversion process are found, comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, and a reference frame list.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li2 discloses wherein candidates in a frame rate up conversion process are found, comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, and a reference frame list ([0014]; [0026-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien and Li to disclose wherein candidates in a frame rate up conversion process are found, comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, and a reference frame list as taught by Li, to improve coding efficiency ([0034], Li).
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 10 and are applicable for claim 18
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 10 and are applicable for claim 20
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in view of US 20150381986 A1-Chen et al (hereinafter referred to as” Chen”).
Regarding claim 15, Chien discloses the method of Claim 1,
Chien and Li fail to disclose wherein a first operation is rounding, and the second operation is clipping.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses wherein a first operation is rounding ([0011], wherein clipping function), and the second operation is clipping ([0011], wherein offset1 and shift 1 are rounding factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien and Li to disclose wherein a first operation is rounding, and the second operation is clipping as taught by Chen, to improve coding efficiency ([0003], Chen).
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487