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 .
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 – 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 in view of Ma (US 2016/0323600) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 claims a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
determining the resolution of the motion vector for a current block (claim 1, col 34, lines 41 – 42);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 1, col 34, lines 43 – 44);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 1, col 34, lines 45 – 46);
deriving a motion vector of the current block based on the derived motion vector predictor and the adjusted motion vector difference (claim 1, col 34, lines 47 – 49); and
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 1, col 34, lines 50 – 51),
wherein the resolution is determined as a resolution candidate specified by a predetermined index from among a plurality of resolution candidates (claim 1, col 34, lines 52 – 54), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 1, col 34, lines 55 – 57).
U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 does not explicitly claim:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 further claims:
wherein the predicting the current block comprises: determining an interpolation filter of the current block (claim 2, col 34, lines 58 – 60);
determining a position of a reference integer pixel (claim 2, col 34, line 61); and
a prediction pixel of the current block by applying the interpolation filter to the reference integer pixel (claim 2, col 34, lines 62 – 63).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 further claims:
wherein when a fractional pixel to be interpolated corresponds to a 1 /2 pixel, one of a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in a decoding apparatus is selectively used (claim 3, col 34, lines 64 – 67).
Turning to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 further claims:
wherein the interpolation filter of the current block is determined as one of the plurality of interpolation filters in consideration of the determined resolution (claim 4, col 35, lines 1 – 4).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 244, 842 further claims:
wherein the position of the reference integer pixel is determined in consideration of a position of the sub-picture (claim 5, col 35, lines 5 – 7).
Turning to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12, 244,842 claims a method of encoding an image performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 6, col 35, line 10);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 6, col 35, line 11 – 12);
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 6, col 35, lines 13 – 14);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 6, col 35, lines 15 – 16);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 6, col 35, lines 17 – 18); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 6, col 35, lines 19 – 20),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 6, col 35, lines 21 – 24), and
the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 6, col 36, lines 1 – 3).
U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 does not explicitly claim:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive.
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 claims an image transmitting method of transmitting a bitstream that is generated by encoding an image based on an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 7, col 36, line 8);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 7, col 36, lines 9 – 10); and
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 7, col 36, lines 11 – 12);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 7, col 36, lines 13 – 14);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 7, col 36, lines 15 – 16); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 7, col 36, lines 17 – 18),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 7, col 36, lines 19 – 22), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 7, col 36, lines 23 – 25).
U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 does not explicitly teach:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution of the motion vector determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,842 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 in view of Ma (US 2016/0323600) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 claims a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
determining the resolution of the motion vector for a current block (claim 1, col 33, lines 59 - 60);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 1, col 33, lines 61 - 62);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 1, col 33, lines 63 – 64);
deriving a motion vector of the current block based on the derived motion vector predictor and the adjusted motion vector difference (claim 1, col 33, lines 65 – 67); and
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 1, col 34, lines 1 – 2),
wherein the resolution is determined as a resolution candidate specified by a predetermined index from among a plurality of resolution candidates (claim 1, col 34, lines 3 – 5), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 1, col 34, lines 9– 11; claim 6, col 34, lines 30 - 33).
U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 does not explicitly claim:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 further claims:
wherein the predicting the current block comprises: determining an interpolation filter of the current block (claim 2, col 34, lines 12 – 14);
determining a position of a reference integer pixel (claim 2, col 34, line 15); and
a prediction pixel of the current block by applying the interpolation filter to the reference integer pixel (claim 2, col 34, lines 16 – 17).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 further claims:
wherein when a fractional pixel to be interpolated corresponds to a 1 /2 pixel, one of a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in a decoding apparatus is selectively used (claim 3, col 34, lines 18 – 21).
Turning to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 further claims:
wherein the interpolation filter of the current block is determined as one of the plurality of interpolation filters in consideration of the determined resolution (claim 4, col 34, lines 22 – 25).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 further claims:
wherein the position of the reference integer pixel is determined in consideration of a position of the sub-picture (claim 5, col 34, lines 26 – 29).
Turning to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 claims a method of encoding an image performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 7, col 34, line 36);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 7, col 34, lines 37 – 38);
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 7, col 34, lines 39 – 40);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 7, col 34, lines 41 – 42);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 7, col 34, lines 43 – 44); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 7, col 34, lines 45 – 46),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 7, col 34, lines 47 – 50), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 7, col 34, lines 54 – 56; claim 6, col 34, lines 30 - 33).
U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 does not explicitly claim:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive.
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 claims an image transmitting method of transmitting a bitstream that is generated by encoding an image based on an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 8, col 34, line 61);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 8, col 34, lines 62 - 63); and
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 8, col 34, lines 64 – 65);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 8, col 34, lines 66 – 67);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 8, col 35, lines 1 – 2); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 8, col 35, lines 3 – 4),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 8, col 35, lines 5 – 8), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 8, col 35, lines 12 – 14; claim 6, col 34, lines 30 - 33).
U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 does not explicitly teach:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution of the motion vector determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,132 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claims 1 – 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 7 of copending Application No. 19/029, 800 in view of Ma (US 2016/0323600) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, copending Application No. 19/029, 800 claims a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
determining the resolution of the motion vector for a current block (claim 1);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 1);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 1);
deriving a motion vector of the current block based on the derived motion vector predictor and the adjusted motion vector difference (claim 1); and
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 1),
wherein the resolution is determined as a resolution candidate specified by a predetermined index from among a plurality of resolution candidates (claim 1), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 1).
Copending Application No. 19/029,800 does not explicitly claim:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of copending Application No. 19/029,800 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 2, copending Application No. 19/029,800 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,800 further claims:
wherein the predicting the current block comprises: determining an interpolation filter of the current block (claim 2);
determining a position of a reference integer pixel (claim 2); and
a prediction pixel of the current block by applying the interpolation filter to the reference integer pixel (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, copending Application No. 19/029,800 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,800 further claims:
wherein when a fractional pixel to be interpolated corresponds to a 1 /2 pixel, one of a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in a decoding apparatus is selectively used (claim 3).
Turning to claim 4, copending Application No. 19/029,800 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,800 further claims:
wherein the interpolation filter of the current block is determined as one of the plurality of interpolation filters in consideration of the determined resolution (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, copending Application No. 19/029,800 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,800 further claims:
wherein the position of the reference integer pixel is determined in consideration of a position of the sub-picture (claim 5).
Turning to claim 6, copending Application No. 19/029,800 claims a method of encoding an image performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 6);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 6);
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 6);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 6);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 6); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 6),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 6), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 6).
Copending Application No. 19/029,800 does not explicitly claim:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive.
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of copending Application No. 19/029,800 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, copending Application No. 19/029,800 claims an image transmitting method of transmitting a bitstream that is generated by encoding an image based on an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 7);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 7); and
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 7);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 7);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 7); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 7),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 7), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 7).
Copending Application No. 19/029,800 does not explicitly teach:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution of the motion vector determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of copending Application No. 19/029,800 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 – 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/029,724 in view of Ma (US 2016/0323600) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, copending Application No. 19/029,724 claims a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
determining the resolution of the motion vector for a current block (claim 1);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 1);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 1);
deriving a motion vector of the current block based on the derived motion vector predictor and the adjusted motion vector difference (claim 1); and
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 1),
wherein the resolution is determined as a resolution candidate specified by a predetermined index from among a plurality of resolution candidates (claim 1), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 1).
Copending Application No. 19/029,724 does not explicitly claim:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
determining a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, wherein the resolution is determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of copending Application No. 19/029,724 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 2, copending Application No. 19/029,724 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,724 further claims:
wherein the predicting the current block comprises: determining an interpolation filter of the current block (claim 2);
determining a position of a reference integer pixel (claim 2); and
a prediction pixel of the current block by applying the interpolation filter to the reference integer pixel (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, copending Application No. 19/029,724 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,724 further claims:
wherein when a fractional pixel to be interpolated corresponds to a 1 /2 pixel, one of a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in a decoding apparatus is selectively used (claim 3).
Turning to claim 4, copending Application No. 19/029,724 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,724 further claims:
wherein the interpolation filter of the current block is determined as one of the plurality of interpolation filters in consideration of the determined resolution (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, copending Application No. 19/029,724 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Copending Application No. 19/029,724 further claims:
wherein the position of the reference integer pixel is determined in consideration of a position of the sub-picture (claim 5).
Turning to claim 6, copending Application No. 19/029,724 claims a method of encoding an image performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 6);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 6);
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 6);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 6);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 6); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 6),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 6), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 6).
Copending Application No. 19/029,724 does not explicitly claim:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive.
Ma, however, teaches a method of decoding an image performed by a decoding apparatus:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution being determined when the flag indicates that the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of copending Application No. 19/029,724 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, copending Application No. 19/029,724 claims an image transmitting method of transmitting a bitstream that is generated by encoding an image based on an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block (claim 7);
predicting the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (claim 7); and
determining a resolution of the motion vector for the current block (claim 7);
deriving a motion vector predictor corresponding to the resolution (claim 7);
adjusting a motion vector difference of the current block based on the resolution (claim 7); and
encoding the adjusted motion vector difference into a bitstream (claim 7),
wherein the resolution is determined from among a plurality of resolution candidates and an index indicating the resolution from among the plurality of resolution candidates is encoded into the bitstream (claim 7), and
wherein the plurality of resolution candidates is defined differently based on whether a reference picture of the current block is a current picture or not (claim 7).
Copending Application No. 19/029,724 does not explicitly teach:
wherein a flag indicating whether the resolution of the motion vector is adaptive or not is determined, the resolution of the motion vector determined based on an indication of the flag (e.g. par. 9: describing that a flag indicates whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive, the resolution determined based on the indication of the flag).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of copending Application No. 19/029,724 by adding the teachings of Ma in order to determine a flag indicating whether a resolution of a motion vector is adaptive or not, the resolution being determined based on an indication of the flag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites an “image transmitting method of transmitting a bitstream”, the bitstream generated by an encoding method, followed by a plurality of encoding steps only. The claim further omits a transmitting step which is customary for transmitting methods. It is therefore unclear whether the invention claimed is an encoding method or a transmitting method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487