19073688
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15, of U.S. Patent No.11,627,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant claims are completely encompassed by the claims of the ‘334 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘334 patent includes additional limitations not require by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for double patenting is proper for a broader, later filed application in view of a narrower, earlier filed patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, of U.S. Patent No. 11,895,325. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the methods described in the instant claims are completely encompassed by the steps performed by the apparatus describe in the claims of the ‘325 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘325 patent includes additional limitations not require by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for double patenting is proper for a broader, later filed application in view of a narrower, earlier filed patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,048. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the methods described in the instant claims are completely encompassed by the steps performed by the apparatus describe in the claims of the ‘048 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘048 patent includes additional limitations not require by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for double patenting is proper for a broader, later filed application in view of a narrower, earlier filed patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 12 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the methods described in the instant claims are completely encompassed by the steps performed by the apparatus describe in the claims of the ‘301 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘301 patent includes additional limitations not require by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for double patenting is proper for a broader, later filed application in view of a narrower, earlier filed patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 12 and 14-15, of U.S. Patent No. 11,183,358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the methods described in the instant claims are completely encompassed by the steps performed by the apparatus describe in the claims of the ‘358 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘358 patent includes additional limitations not require by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for double patenting is proper for a broader, later filed application in view of a narrower, earlier filed patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the methods described in the instant claims are completely encompassed by the steps performed by the apparatus describe in the claims of the ‘147 patent. The examiner notes that the ‘147 patent includes additional limitations not require by the claims of the instant application, however a rejection for double patenting is proper for a broader, later filed application in view of a narrower, earlier filed patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz et al (2018/0278949 hereafter Kar for brevity) in view of “Versatile Video Coding Draft 5” (hereafter Bross, provided by applicant in parent application No. 17/559964) and alternatively in view of Lim et al (2014/0037011).
In regard to claim 1 Kar discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining image information including prediction related information from a bitstream (Kar Fig. 3 and par 95 note receiving encoded video data from video data memory 68, also note par. 93 motion vector based inter coding and intra coding information);
deriving an inter prediction mode based on the prediction related information (Kar Fig. 3 and par. 96 note producing prediction blocks according to inter prediction modes);
constructing motion vector predictor candidate lists for a current block based on the inter prediction mode (Kar pars 104-105 not constructing candidate lists for merge and AMVP inter prediction modes);
deriving motion vectors for the current block based on the motion vector predictor candidate lists (Kar par. 105 note deriving motion vectors using selected candidates from the candidate list);
deriving reference picture lists for the current block (Kar par. 83 note reference picture lists L0 and L1, also note par. 105 note using reference pictures of the selected merge candidates, or the L0 and L1 reference pictures at the explicitly signaled reference indices under AMVP mode);
deriving a first picture order count (POC) difference between each of reference pictures included in the reference picture lists and a current picture (Kar. pars 112-113 note determining POC differences between current and reference pictures, also note Fig. 10 illustrating POC differences for L0 and L1 references);
generating predicted samples based on the motion vectors, the symmetric motion vector difference references (Kar. pars 91-92 and 168-178 note enforcing symmetric motion vector differences also note par. 106 determining references and par. 123 note generating samples using symmetric motion vectors generated based on the POC to the selected references),
wherein the motion vectors are derived based on motion vector predictors derived based on the motion vector predictor candidate lists and motion vector differences (Kar. pars 121-123 note initial motion vectors are selected from candidate lists),
wherein bi-prediction is applied to the current block (Kar par 123 note bi-lateral matching applied to bi-predicted blocks),
wherein the motion vector differences include an L0 motion vector difference for an L0 prediction and an L1 motion vector difference for an L1 prediction (Kar. pars 168-178 note L0 and L1 motion vector differences),
wherein the L1 motion vector difference is derived based on the L0 motion vector difference (Kar pars 168-178 note L1 motion vector difference must be equal to the scaled L0 motion vector difference for symmetric motion vector difference constraint).
Kar discloses determining reference pictures for L0 and L1 prediction of symmetric motion vector differences (Kar pars 168-178 note references at L1 POC and L0 POC). It is noted that Kar does not explicitly disclose deriving symmetric motion vector difference reference indices based on the POC. However, Bross discloses:
wherein the L0 and the L1 symmetric motion vector difference reference indexes are derived based on the POC differences between short-term reference pictures included in the reference picture lists and the current picture (Bross section 8.3.2-8.3.5 note section 8.3.5 L0 symmetric motion vector difference reference indices are selected based on DiffPicOrderCnt which is a POC difference, also note section 8.3.3 derivation of the POC differs for STRP and long term reference pictures (LTRP), hence the POC difference and the symmetric motion vector difference reference index are derived ‘based’ on the determination that the reference is an STRP), and
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of deriving symmetric motion vector difference reference indices as taught by Bross in the invention of Kar in order to gain the advantage of determining reference pictures for symmetric motion vector difference constraints without signaling a reference picture index as suggested by Bross (Bross 8.3.5 note L0 and L1 reference pictures determined without signaling reference picture index information).
As noted above Kar in view of Bross discloses deriving symmetric motion vector difference reference indices “based on” determining that the reference picture is a short term reference type. However, even assuming, arguendo, that Kar in view of Bross failed to disclose this limitation, the claim limitation would still be obvious in further view of Lim. The symmetric motion vector difference operation of Kar and Bross predicts one of the L0 or L1 motion vector by scaling the other of the L0 or L1 motion vector based on POC differences and prediction directions (Kar pars 168-178 note pars 169-170, and 172-177). Lim teaches that motion vectors referring to long term reference pictures should be excluded from motion vector scaling operations (Lim Fig. 9 and pars. 197-202 note steps S914-918 and pars 199-200 POC based scaling operations are not performed for motion vectors with certain reference picture types such as long term reference picture types as noted in par. 202).
It is therefore, further considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of excluding reference pictures determined to be long term reference pictures the from symmetric motion vector difference processing of Kar and using only short term reference pictures, in order to prevent the use of inaccurate motion vectors resulting from scaling with large POC differences as suggested by Lim (Lim par. 183).
Claim 2-3 describe an encoding method and a method of transmitting that substantially corresponding to the decoding method of claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claim 2 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 2-3 Kar further discloses encoding and transmitting the data comprising the bitstream (Kar Fig. 2 and par. 89 note encoded bitstream may be transmitted to another device),
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160330472 A1 HAN; Jong Ki et al.
US 20150085927 A1 Sjoberg; Rickard et al.
US 20140064374 A1 Xiu; Xiaoyu et al.
US 20090262249 A1 Niu; Sheng-Chun et al.
US 20080018788 A1 Zhou; Zhi 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 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on (571)272-39223928. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2423