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 . 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 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. There are a total of 19 claims and claims 16-35 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's argument, filed on July 08, 2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 16-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/08/2026 remarks have been fully considered, 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.
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 16, 23, 30 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16, 23, 30 recite the limitation " the illumination" in in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend to "an illumination” or define “an illumination” earlier in the claim.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,2-6,8-11,12, 14-16,17,19-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,771 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other because:
The independent claims 16,23 and 30 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claims 16,23 and 30 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,212,771 B2.
The limitations of claims 16,23 and 30 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claims 16,23 and 30 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,212,771 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 16, 23 and 30 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 16, 23, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,771 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 16, 23, and 30 is not patentably distinct from claim 16, 23 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,771 B2.
Referring to claims 16, 23, and 30 taking claim 16 as exemplary, although conflicting application 18/200,280, does not explicitly disclose what' s claimed in instant application 19/037,914, determining to use bi-directional motion vector refinement for the coding block based on the motion vector prediction candidate; based on the determination to use the illumination for the coding block and based on the determination to use bi-directional motion vector refinement for the coding block, refining the prediction of the coding block using illumination compensation.
However, Chen teaches determining to use bi-directional motion vector refinement for the coding block based on the motion vector prediction candidate; based on the determination to use the illumination for the coding block and based on the determination to use bi-directional motion vector refinement for the coding block, refining the prediction of the coding block using illumination compensation. ([see in Fig. 14 ; section: 2.3.5 and 2.3.8-2.3.9]- Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) is based on a linear model for illumination changes, using a scaling factor a and an offset b. And it is enabled or disabled adaptively for each inter-mode coded coding unit (CU), see also ([section: 2.3.7; 2.3.7.5. MV refinement]- motion vector refinement (DMVR) method, the two motion vectors of the bi-prediction are further refined by a bilateral template matching process. The bilateral template matching applied in the decoder to perform a distortion-based search between a bilateral template)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the instant application 19/037,914 to combine the teachings of Chen. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to standardize of future video coding technology with a compression capability that significantly exceeds that of the current HEVC standard (including its current extensions) (Chen, [abstract]).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Li et al., US 2018/0098087 A1, discloses improving frame rate up-conversion (FRUC).
2. Zhang et al., US 2018/0098072 A1, disclose techniques that may reduce the memory and bandwidth associated with storing data in an image/video coding process.
3. Chen et. al., US 2019/0394463 A1, discloses methods, and apparatuses for performing deblocking filtering using variable filter levels or strengths.
4. Liu et al., US 2016/0366416 A1, techniques and systems are described for deriving an illumination compensation status for video data.
6. Sato, US 2013/0028531 A1, discloses an image processing device and an image processing method.
7. Park et al., US 2014/0204999 A1, discloses method of applying a deblocking filter as an in-loop filter.
8. TSAI et al., US 2019/0238890 A1, discloses method of applying a deblocking filter as an in-loop filter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights