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.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the specification and claims dated 06/17/2026 and enters for consideration. No new claims have been added nor any claims cancelled. The amendments are in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/17/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the current application.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,399 B2 in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2020/0244979 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,250,399 B2 in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2020/0244979 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 1 between the instant application and the patent.
19046972 (Instant Application)
12,250,399 B2 (Patent)
Claim 1
Claim 1
1
A method for processing video data, comprising:
A method for processing video data, the method comprising:
2
partitioning a coding unit into a plurality of sub-blocks, wherein each subblock has a sub-block motion vector;
partitioning a coding unit into a plurality of sub-blocks,
3
determining a weight of a sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks based on a weight of a top-left control point of the coding unit, wherein the top-left control point is a top-left neighboring corner of the coding unit; and
wherein the coding unit is associated with a first weight; determining a second weight of a sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks based on weights of control points, wherein the control points are neighboring corners of the coding unit; and
4
bi-predicting the sub-block using the sub-block motion vector and based on the weight of the sub-block.
bi-predicting the sub-block based on the second weight.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent except “wherein each subblock has a sub-block motion vector”. Although, the patent claim does not explicitly teach this limitation, but Li et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach that each sub-block has its own motion vector associated with it (Li et al.; [0027]; Fig. 13 shows the motion vector for a sub-block). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine patent claim's invention of determining prediction weight for merge mode to include Li et al's usage of sub-block motion vector, because the merge mode can be an inter picture prediction submode where the motion vector is derived from one or more motion vector predictors without the benefit of a coded motion vector component outside the predictors (Li et al.; [0084]). Therefore, the instant application claim 1 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1 in view of Li et al.
Claim 9 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Patent 12,250,399 B2 in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2020/0244979 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 9 between the instant application and the patent.
19046972 (Instant Application)
12,250,399 B2 (Patent)
Claim 9
Claim 8
1
An apparatus for processing video data, comprising:
A video processing apparatus, comprising:
2
a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
3
partitioning a coding unit into a plurality of sub-blocks, wherein each subblock has a sub-block motion vector;
partitioning a coding unit into a plurality of sub-blocks,
4
determining a weight of a sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks based on a weight of a top-left control point of the coding unit, wherein the top-left control point is a top-left neighboring corner of the coding unit; and
wherein the coding unit is associated with a first weight; determining a second weight of a sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks based on weights of control points, respectively, wherein the control points are neighboring corners of the coding unit; and
5
bi-predicting the sub-block using the sub-block motion vector and based on the weight of the sub-block.
bi-predicting the sub-block based on the second weight.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent except “wherein each subblock has a sub-block motion vector”. Although, the patent claim does not explicitly teach this limitation, but Li et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach that each sub-block has its own motion vector associated with it (Li et al.; [0027]; Fig. 13 shows the motion vector for a sub-block). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine patent claim's invention of determining prediction weight for merge mode to include Li et al's usage of sub-block motion vector, because the merge mode can be an inter picture prediction submode where the motion vector is derived from one or more motion vector predictors without the benefit of a coded motion vector component outside the predictors (Li et al.; [0084]). Therefore, the instant application claim 9 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 8 in view of Li et al.
Claim 15 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Patent 12,250,399 B2 in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2020/0244979 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 15 between the instant application and the patent.
19046972 (Instant Application)
12,250,399 B2 (Patent)
Claim 15
Claim 15
1
A method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising: receiving a video sequence; encoding the video sequence by:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream, wherein the bitstream comprises
2
partitioning a coding unit into a plurality of sub-blocks, wherein each subblock has a sub-block motion vector;
a flag indicating a coding unit being partitioned into a plurality of sub-blocks,
3
determining a weight of a sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks based on a weight of a top-left control point of the coding unit, wherein the top-left control point is a top-left neighboring corner of the coding unit; and
wherein the flag causes a decoder to: determine a second weight of a sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks based on weights of control points, respectively, wherein the control points are neighboring corners of the coding unit; and
4
bi-predicting the sub-block using the sub-block motion vector and based on the weight of the sub-block.
bi-predict the sub-block based on the second weight.
5
transmitting a bitstream that is generated based on the encoding
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent except “wherein each subblock has a sub-block motion vector”. Although, the patent claim does not explicitly teach this limitation, but Li et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach that each sub-block has its own motion vector associated with it (Li et al.; [0027]; Fig. 13 shows the motion vector for a sub-block). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine patent claim's invention of determining prediction weight for merge mode to include Li et al's usage of sub-block motion vector, because the merge mode can be an inter picture prediction submode where the motion vector is derived from one or more motion vector predictors without the benefit of a coded motion vector component outside the predictors (Li et al.; [0084]). Therefore, the instant application claim 15 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 15 in view of Li et al.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-20 of Patent 12,250,399 B2 in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2020/0244979 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments in abstract which has overcome the objection and therefore withdrawn. The Examiner also acknowledges amendments in the claims to address the minor typos in the claim and 112(b) rejections. The amendments have overcome the objections and the 112(b) rejection and therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section V, Page 10-13 of the Remark, filed on 06/17/2026, with respect to rejection of the independent claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the prior art rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. However, the amendments didn’t change the scope of the claim to the extent of overcoming the DP rejections. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the DP rejection of the claims. The claims will be allowable only with the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer (TD).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. "SIMPLIFIED ENTROPY CODING FOR SUB-BLOCK BASED MOTION INFORMATION LIST" - Liu et al., US PGPub 2020/0382771 A1.
2. "VIDEO CODING BASED ON MULTIPLE SETS OF SUBBLOCK MOTION VECTORS” - Li et al., US PGPub 2023/0054988 A1.
3. "History-based Motion Vector Prediction in Versatile Video Coding" - Zhang et al., 2019 Data Compression Conference (DCC).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights