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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11-15 relate to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream a generated by a particular encoding method. Since the claims relate to a bitstream which is stored on a computer readable medium after all coding functions have been performed the bitstream no longer has any functional relationship with a processor or other machine, but instead relates to e.g. a video stored on a hard drive. The purpose of the stored bitstream is only to convey meaning to a human viewer of the coded bitstream and is thus non-functional descriptive material. Non-functional descriptive material used only to convey messages or meaning is given little patentable weight (See MPEP 2111.05). For the purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as relating only to a computer readable medium storing data.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the claim limitations of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the ‘162 application. The examiner notes that the ‘162 application includes additional claim limitations not required by the instant application. However a rejection of the broader, later filed application is appropriate in view of the narrower earlier filed application.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,575,927. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the claim limitations of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the ‘927 application. The examiner notes that the ‘927 application includes additional claim limitations not required by the instant application. However a rejection of the broader, later filed application is appropriate in view of the narrower earlier filed application.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,917,187. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the claim limitations of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the ‘927 application. The examiner notes that the ‘927 application includes additional claim limitations not required by the instant application. However a rejection of the broader, later filed application is appropriate in view of the narrower earlier filed application.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,044. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the claim limitations of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the ‘927 application. The examiner notes that the ‘927 application includes additional claim limitations not required by the instant application. However a rejection of the broader, later filed application is appropriate in view of the narrower earlier filed application..
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.
11for 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.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang et al (20180098086)
In regard to claim Claims 11-15 as noted above claims directed to non-functional descriptive material are not given patentable weight. Thus, the claim scope is simply a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chuang, which recites as a storage medium storing a bitstream (Chuang par. 91 note encoded video bitstream stored in a storage media).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the rejections for Double Patenting above, claims 1-10 and 16 are otherwise 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 6 and 16 require coding a video block by obtaining a picture order count difference between a first reference picture and a current picture, obtaining a picture order count difference between a second reference picture and the current pictures, obtaining correction values for the first and second motion vectors in the form of a specific offset which is used to correct the first and second motion vectors and reconstructing the current block using the corrected first and second motion vectors.
The closest prior arts are Imajo and Schwarz. Imajo discloses a decoding comparing picture order count differences between each of the reference pictures and a current block and correcting the motion vectors on the basis of the comparison by scaling the motion vectors based on the difference in picture order count. Schwarz discloses reconstructing video block using corrected motion vectors. None of the prior arts alone or in combination disclose all of the limitations required by the claims.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 depend from claims 1 and 6 above and are allowed for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190313112 A1 Han; Jong-Ki et al.
US 20140334551 A1 KIM; Hui Yong et al.
US 20130294513 A1 SEREGIN; Vadim et al.
US 20030099294 A1 Wang, Limin et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2423