DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–38 of U.S. Patent No. 9,300,978 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is substantially overlapping.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,774 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is substantially overlapping.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsaing (US 2008/0112481 A1), Boyce (US 2006/0153297 A1), and Sriram (US 6,414,992).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Hsaing, Boyce, and Sriram teaches or suggests a method for encoding an image, comprising: establishing a rank order for a plurality of motion vector predictors of a current image block based at least in part on a reference index of a block from which the respective motion vector predictor is derived (Hsaing, ¶ 0037: teaches a prediction decision unit that performs inter-prediction for a current macroblock by evaluating the rate-distortion costs of predictors and ranking the predictors according to RDO; Boyce, ¶ 0055: teaches the RDO cost for inter-prediction is known to include the motion vector’s reference picture index; Thus the combination teaches or suggests rank ordering motion vector predictors according to cost wherein the cost is based at least in part on a reference index of the motion vector), wherein the plurality of motion vector predictors are associated with respective reference indices (Boyce, ¶ 0055: in teaching the RDO cost for inter-prediction is known to include the motion vector’s reference picture index, Boyce teaches motion vector predictors are associated with respective indices), and wherein a candidate list of motion vector predictors is formed in reliance upon the rank order (Hsaing, ¶ 0037: in teaching the ranking the predictors according to RDO, Hsaing teaches there is a candidate list formed in reliance upon the rank order); selecting a motion vector predictor of the current image block from the candidate list of motion vector predictors (Hsaing, ¶ 0037: teaches the decision unit decides which motion vector to select based on the ordered list of candidate motion vectors); and providing in an encoded bitstream a flag representative of the motion vector predictor that was selected, wherein different values of the flag are indicative of different motion vector predictors (Hsaing, ¶ 0037: in teaching the ranking the predictors according to RDO, Hsaing teaches there is a candidate list formed in reliance upon the rank order and that the winning candidate selected from the list must be signaled using an index into the list; Sriram, col. 9, ll. 40–60: teaches outputting to the bitstream the selected candidate motion vector).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Hsaing, with those of Boyce, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of inter-prediction for video coding would have been led to their relevant teachings regarding sorting motion vectors according to rate-distortion cost and because Boyce merely explains what the skilled artisan understood at the time regarding how rate-distortion optimization (RDO) accounted for the cost of signaling side information such as the motion vector’s reference picture index. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Hsaing and Boyce used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Hsaing and Boyce, with those of Sriram, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of inter-prediction for video coding would have been led to their relevant teachings regarding selecting motion vectors according to rate-distortion cost and because Sriram merely explains what the skilled artisan understood at the time regarding how a motion vector candidate, chosen according rate-distortion optimization (RDO), would require the selected candidate to be encoded for transmission to a decoder. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Hsaing, Boyce, and Sriram used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin (US 2005/0053293 A1) teaches a number of Applicant’s claimed features such as ordering motion vector predictions is a pre-specified order (¶ 0156), candidate motion vector predictors A, B, and C (e.g. ¶ 0031), intra coded blocks or otherwise unavailable candidates are considered to have a zero motion vector (e.g. ¶ 0041), spatial motion vector candidates and temporal motion vector candidates (e.g. ¶¶ 0041–0042), and selecting a valid candidate motion vector without performing a median operation (e.g. ¶ 0050).
Au (US 2007/0154103 A1) teaches computing motion vector predictor costs in a predefined order (¶ 0046).
Beric (US 2008/0204602 A1) teaches that spatial motion vector predictors are first evaluated and if those candidates are unavailable (“missing”), temporally related motion vectors are selected, thus establishing an order of motion vector predictors (e.g. ¶ 0033).
Liang (US 2006/0198443 A1) teaches ranking motion vector predictors based on motion vector lengths (e.g. ¶ 0019).
De Haan (US 2006/0098886 A1) teaches ranking candidate motion vectors to form a smaller set of candidate vectors based on the ranking wherein the ranking can be accomplished through ranking the motion vectors in terms of distance from an average vector or based on magnitude of the vectors (e.g. ¶ 0037 and Claim 8) and teaches candidate motion vectors ranked in order to select a second set of candidate vectors (e.g. ¶ 0020).
Demos (US 6,957,350 B1) teaches using second- or third-best motion vector choices according to their ranking to effectuate image watermarking (col. 26, ll. 35–45).
Kondo (US 2004/0218674 A1) teaches rank ordering motion vector predictors from neighboring blocks (e.g. Abstract).
MacInnis (2007/0014477 A1) teaches ranking a plurality of motion vectors based on cost (e.g. ¶¶ 0033, 0047, and Claim 1).
Kawashima (US 2006/0215758 A1) teaches the RDO cost of a motion vector includes the bitcost of the reference index information (¶ 0028).
Shi (US 2006/0018382 A1) teaches labeling motion vectors as suspicious based on whether it is from the temporally closest reference frame or different from neighboring motion vector’s reference frames (i.e. based on reference index as claimed) (¶ 0079).
Abe (US 2004/0190615 A1) teaches direct mode wherein the motion vector is derived by referencing reference “pictures in order of temporal proximity” (¶ 0017), teaches spatial prediction which utilizes the motion vectors of coded blocks located around the current block (¶ 0056), and selects the best mode by comparing distances from the current picture to each of the reference pictures pointed to by the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks (¶ 0063).
Manjunath (US 2006/0120612 A1) teaches calculating the MVP as a zero vector if the motion vectors are not available (for example because neighboring blocks used intra mode) (¶ 0058).
Holcomb (US 2005/0053137 A1) teaches choosing a MVP based on a flag (e.g. ¶ 0156).
Sriram (US 6,414,992) teaches outputting to the bitstream the selected candidate motion vector (col. 9, ll. 40–60).
Yamaguchi (US 2004/0091049 A1) teaches a list of MVPs indicated by a value e.g. (1, 2, 3) (e.g. ¶ 0666).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
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.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights