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.
Claim1- 15, 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-16, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12250411. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current
Patent
1. (and under complimentary rationale 17. And similar 20. )A method for video encoding, comprising: signaling one or more enable flags in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of a picture; and selectively signaling a disable flag in a picture header (PH) associated with a picture, wherein the disable flag specifies whether a coding tool is disabled for one or more slices associated with the PH; wherein in response to the disable flag being determined not to be signaled in the PH, a value of the disable flag is inferred according to one or more enable flags at the SPS level;
and wherein in response to a first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1 and a second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 0.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first enable flag at the SPS level specifies whether the coding tool is enabled, the first enable flag equaling to 1 specifies that the coding tool is enabled, and the first enable flag equaling to 0 specifies that the coding tool is disabled; and wherein the second enable flag at the SPS level specifies whether the disable flag is present in the PH referring to the SPS, the second enable flag equaling to 0 specifies that the disable flag is not present in the PH referring to the SPS, and the second enable flag equaling to 1 specifies that the disable flag is able to be present in the PH referring to the SPS.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the disable flag equals to 1 specifies that the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices is disabled; and the value of the disable flag equals to 0 specifies that the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices is enabled.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the coding tool comprises at least one of decoder motion vector refinement (DMVR) based inter bi-prediction and bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) based inter bi-prediction.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the selectively signaling the disable flag in the picture header (PH) associated with the picture comprises: in response to one or more slices associated with the picture being determined not to be bi-predictive from one or more reference picture lists, not signaling the disable flag in the PH.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the disable flag specifies whether the DMVR based inter bi-prediction is disabled for the one or more slices associated with the PH; wherein the value of the disable flag equals to 1 specifies that the DMVR based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices is disabled; and the value of the disable flag equals to 0 specifies that the DMVR based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices is enabled.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1 and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1, and in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein in response to a plurality of reference picture lists being determined to be signaled in the PH, and a number of reference pictures in a second reference picture list being determined to be equal to 0, the one or more slices associated with the picture are determined not to be bi-predictive, wherein the plurality of reference picture lists comprise a first reference picture list and the second reference picture list; wherein in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0 and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the disable flag is inferred to be 1; and wherein in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1 and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1; and wherein in response to determining that the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
10. The method of claim 6, wherein a value of the first enable flag at the SPS level is determined as W, and wherein in response to the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1-W, or in response to the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined not equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein in response to a plurality of reference picture lists being determined to be signaled in the PH, and a number of reference pictures in a second reference picture list being determined to be equal to 0, the one or more slices associated with the picture are determined not to be bi-predictive, wherein the plurality of reference picture lists comprise a first reference picture list and the second reference picture list, and wherein in response to the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
12. The method of claim 5, wherein the disable flag specifies whether the BDOF based inter bi-prediction is disabled for the one or more slices associated with the PH; wherein the value of the disable flag equals to 1 specifies that the BDOF based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices is disabled; and wherein the value of the disable flag equals to 0 specifies that the BDOF based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices is enabled.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein in response to both of the first enable flag at the SPS level and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1, and in response to both of the first enable flag at the SPS level and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1;
or in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1, and in response to the second enable flag at the SPS level determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein in response to a plurality of reference picture lists being determined to be signaled in the PH, and a number of reference pictures in a second reference picture list being determined to be equal to 0, the one or more slices associated with the picture are determined not to be bi-predictive, wherein the plurality of reference picture lists comprise a first reference picture list and the second reference picture list, wherein in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0 and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the disable flag is inferred to be 1; and wherein in response to the first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, and the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
15. The method of claim 12, wherein a value of the first enable flag at the SPS level is determined as V; and wherein in response to the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1-V, or in response to the second enable flag at the SPS level being determined not to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 1.
18. An apparatus for video encoding, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors; wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform acts comprising: signaling one or more enable flags in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of a picture; and selectively signaling a disable flag in a picture header (PH) associated with a picture, wherein the disable flag specifies whether a coding tool is disabled for one or more slices associated with the PH; wherein in response to the disable flag being determined not to be signaled in the PH, a value of the disable flag is inferred according to one or more enable flags at the SPS level; and wherein in response to a first enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 1 and a second enable flag at the SPS level being determined to be equal to 0, the value of the disable flag is inferred to be 0.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for video coding storing a bitstream generated by the method for video encoding of claim 1.
1. A method for video decoding, comprising: determining, by a decoder, whether a disable flag is present in a picture header (PH) associated with a picture, wherein the disable flag specifies whether a coding tool is disabled for one or more slices associated with the PH; and in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring, by the decoder, a value of the disable flag according to one or more enable flags signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the picture, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture comprises: in response to determining that a first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1 and a second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 0.
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the first enable flag in the SPS specifies whether the coding tool is enabled, the first enable flag equaling to 1 specifies that the coding tool is enabled, and the first enable flag equaling to 0 specifies that the coding tool is disabled, and wherein the second enable flag in the SPS specifies whether the disable flag is present in the PH referring to the SPS, the second enable flag equaling to 0 specifies that the disable flag is not present in the PH referring to the SPS, and the second enable flag equaling to 1 specifies that the disable flag is able to be present in the PH referring to the SPS.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the value of the disable flag equals to 1, disabling, by the decoder, the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices; and in response to determining that the value of the disable flag equals to 0, enabling, by the decoder, the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the coding tool comprises at least one of decoder motion vector refinement (DMVR) based inter bi-prediction and bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) based inter bi-prediction.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: in response to determining from one or more reference picture lists that the one or more slices associated with the picture are not bi-predictive, determining, by the decoder, that the disable flag is not present in the PH.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the disable flag specifies whether the DMVR based inter bi-prediction is disabled for the one or more slices associated with the PH; wherein disabling the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices comprises disabling the DMVR based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices; and wherein enabling the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices comprises enabling the DMVR based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1 and the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1; and in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: in response to determining that the one or more reference picture lists are signaled in the PH, and a number of reference pictures in a second reference picture list equals to 0, determining that the one or more slices associated with the picture are not bi-predictive, wherein the one or more reference picture lists comprise a first reference picture list and the second reference picture list, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 0 and the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the disable flag to be 1; and in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1 and the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1; and in response to determining that the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
9. The method of claim 5, further comprising: determining a value of the first enable flag in the SPS as W; and wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that a second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1-W.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the second enable flag in the SPS does not equal to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.(also part of 10 in current)
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: in response to determining that the one or more reference picture lists are signaled in the PH, and a number of reference pictures in a second reference picture list equals to 0, determining that the one or more slices associated with the picture are not bi-predictive, wherein the one or more reference picture lists comprise a first reference picture list and the second reference picture list, wherein in response to determining that the second enable flag in the SPS does not equal to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1 further comprises: in response to determining that the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
12. The method of claim 4, wherein the disable flag specifies whether the BDOF based inter bi-prediction is disabled for the one or more slices associated with the PH; wherein disabling the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices comprises disabling the BDOF based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices; and wherein enabling the coding tool in decoding the one or more slices comprises enabling the BDOF based inter bi-prediction in decoding the one or more slices.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1 and the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1; and in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1; and in response to determining that the fourth second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising: in response to determining that the one or more reference picture lists are signaled in the PH, and a number of reference pictures in a second reference picture list equals to 0, determining that the one or more slices associated with the picture are not bi-predictive, wherein the one or more reference picture lists comprise a first reference picture list and the second reference picture list, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 0 and the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1; and in response to determining that the first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, and the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 1, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1.
16. The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining a value of the first enable flag in the SPS as V wherein inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture further comprises: in response to determining that the second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 1-V.
19. An apparatus for video coding, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors; wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform the method for video decoding comprising: determining whether a disable flag is present in a picture header (PH) associated with a picture, wherein the disable flag specifies whether a coding tool is disabled for one or more slices associated with the PH; and in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring a value of the disable flag according to one or more enable flags signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the picture, wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture comprises: in response to determining that a first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1 and a second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 0.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for video coding storing a bitstream to be decoded by a method for video decoding, comprising: determining whether a disable flag is present in a picture header (PH) associated with a picture, wherein the disable flag specifies whether a coding tool is disabled for one or more slices associated with the PH; and in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring a value of the disable flag according to one or more enable flags signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the picture; wherein in response to determining that the disable flag is not present in the PH, inferring the value of the disable flag according to the one or more enable flags signaled in the SPS of the picture comprises: in response to determining that a first enable flag in the SPS equals to 1 and a second enable flag in the SPS equals to 0, inferring the value of the disable flag to be 0.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. US 2023/0040224.
In regard to claim 19, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, the identified claim and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by
Chen, which discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (Fig. 5: Memory 504)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights