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.
This Application 19/074,762
Parent Patent 12,250,390
[Claim 1] A video encoder comprising circuitry configured to: receive a video signal; generate an encoded bitstream… the bitstream being decodable by a decoder configured to receive the bitstream.
[Claim 21] This feature is not claimed in Claim 21, but it is a feature inherent to encoders.
The remainder of Claim 1 is indistinct from Claim 21 of the Parent Patent.
Claim 3, Claim 10
Claim 23
Claim 4, Claim 11
Claim 24
Claim 5, Claim 12
Claim 25
Claim 6, Claim 13
Claim 26
[Claim 7] an intra-predicted coding unit… and decode the intra-predicted coding unit using a prediction from a previously decoded coding unit in the picture.
[Claim 21] This feature is not claimed in Claim 21, but it is a feature inherent to video coding.
The remainder of Claim 7 is indistinct from Claim 21 of the Parent Patent.
[Claim 8] In addition to the encoder-specific language of Claim 1, Claim 8 recites an intra-predicted coding unit… and decode the intra-predicted coding unit using a prediction from a previously decoded coding unit in the picture.
[Claim 21] This feature is not claimed in Claim 21, but it is a feature inherent to video coding.
The remainder of Claim 8 is indistinct from Claim 21 of the Parent Patent.
Claim 9
Claim 21
Parent Patent 11,451,810
[Claims 1, 8] A video encoder comprising circuitry configured to: receive a video signal; generate an encoded bitstream… the bitstream being decodable by a decoder configured to receive the bitstream.
[Claim 1] This feature is not claimed in Claim 1, but it is a feature inherent to encoders.
The remainder of Claim 1 is indistinct from Claim 1 of the Parent Patent.
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3, Claim 10
Claim 3
Claim 4, Claim 11
Claim 4
Claim 5, Claim 12
Claim 5
Claim 6, Claim 13
Claim 6
[Claim 7] an intra-predicted coding unit… and decode the intra-predicted coding unit using a prediction from a previously decoded coding unit in the picture.
[Claim 1] This feature is not claimed in Claim 1, but it is a feature inherent to video coding.
The remainder of Claim 7 is indistinct from Claim 21 of the Parent Patent.
[Claim 8] In addition to the encoder-specific language of Claim 1, Claim 8 recites an intra-predicted coding unit… and decode the intra-predicted coding unit using a prediction from a previously decoded coding unit in the picture.
[Claim 1] This feature is not claimed in Claim 1, but it is a feature inherent to video coding.
The remainder of Claim 8 is indistinct from Claim 21 of the Parent Patent.
Claim 9
Claim 1
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,390. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language inconsistency is between encoder and decoder implementations of the inventive concept, which are obvious in view of each other.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,390.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,390.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,390.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,390.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,810. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language inconsistency is between encoder and decoder, which are obvious in view of each other.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,810.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,810.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,810.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,810.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,810.
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 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is an encoder having a step of “decoding the intra-predicted coding unit.” This makes the claim scope unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US PG Publication 2017/0332099).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee (US PG Publication 2017/0332099) discloses a computer-readable recording medium storing an encoded bitstream (encoded data may be output from output interface 22 to a storage device [0036]) …. The remainder of Claim 9 does not have patentable weight, as it is directed to the medium storing a bitstream (see MPEP 2112.01), and not to the method.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) in view of Lee (US PG Publication 2017/0332099).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses a video encoder (coding standard [0003]; video encoder [0112]) comprising circuitry (hardware, software, combination [0117]) configured to:
receive a video signal (video sequence [0037]);
generate an encoded bitstream including a coded picture (video bitstream [0112]), the coded picture including a first region (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]) having a first contiguous plurality of coding units (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) and a second region (segment a current picture into regions—local motion selected for region [0080]) having a second contiguous plurality of coding units (CTU, slice, tile [0037]), the bitstream being decodable by a decoder (parse the video bitstream at the decoder [0112]) configured to receive the bitstream (video bitstream at the video decoder [0112]) and further configured to:
construct for each coding unit in the first region (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]) a motion vector candidate list (merge candidate list [0093]), each motion vector candidate list having a common motion vector (a position in the merge candidate list that points to a position coded in global motion compensation mode [0093]), …;
decode the first plurality (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]) of coding units (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) using the common motion vector (global motion compensation in a coded region [0037]) from the motion vector candidate lists (using the merge index, a position in the merge candidate list that points to a position coded in global motion compensation mode [0093]), whereby a picture region with common motion is reconstructed in the first region (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]);
ascertain from the bitstream (parse the video bitstream at the decoder [0112]) individually determined motion vectors (the regions using the LMC mode, regular MVs can be applied to each block within the region, where the MVs can be explicitly signaled or inferred by prediction [0080]) for each coding unit (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) of the second region (segment a current picture into regions—local motion selected for region [0080]), wherein adjacent coding units in the second region have different individually determined motion vectors (regular MVs can be applied to each block within the region, where the MVs can be explicitly signaled or inferred by prediction [0080]), each individually determined motion vector being one of a translational motion vector (translation model, all pixels in the region have the same motion direction and magnitude [0006]-[0007]) or a control point motion vector for affine motion (The six parameters for the affine model can be derived based on three known motion vectors for three different locations [0014]);
and decode the second plurality of coding units (segment a current picture into regions—local motion selected for region [0080]) using the individually determined motion vectors (regular MVs can be applied to each block within the region [0080]), whereby local motion in the second region is reconstructed (where the MVs are inferred by prediction [0080]).
Liu does not disclose, but Lee (US PG Publication 2017/0332099) teaches wherein the order of the motion vector candidates (order of candidates in the candidate list [0074]) in each motion vector candidate list (into the merge list [0281]) is determined such that the common motion vector (the most frequent motion vector [0281]) is first (the most frequent motion vector is inserted first into the merge list [0281]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to order the global motion vector of Liu first in the merge list of Liu because Lee teaches that assigning higher priority to a merge candidate that is most likely to be used—and because persons of ordinary skill in the art know that global motion is most likely to be used in certain regions of the image—results in bit-savings and minimal encoder/decoder complexity increase [0033], improving the efficiency and quality of encoding.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses the encoder of claim 1, wherein the decoder receiving the bitstream is configured to determine global motion is indicated for the coded picture (enabling flag indicating global motion is enabled [0037] – [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses the encoder of claim 1, wherein the common motion vector includes a control point motion vector (global motion affine – three known motion vectors for three different locations [0014]).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses the encoder of claim 3, wherein the control point motion vector is a translational motion vector (global motion translational model [0006]-[0008]).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses the encoder of claim 3, wherein the control point motion vector is a vector of a four parameter affine motion model (scaling model has four parameters [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses the encoder of claim 3, wherein the control point motion vector is a vector of a six parameter affine motion model (six parameter affine model [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses a decoder, the decoder (video decoder [0112]) comprising circuitry (hardware, software, combination [0117]) configured to:
receive a bitstream including a coded picture (video bitstream at the video decoder [0112]), the coded picture including a first region with common motion (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]) having a first contiguous plurality of coding units (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) and a second region with local motion (segment a current picture into regions—local motion selected for region [0080]) having a second contiguous plurality of coding units (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) and an intra-predicted coding unit (intra prediction is used on a block basis [0004]);
construct for each coding unit in the first region (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]) a motion vector candidate list (merge candidate list [0093]), each motion vector candidate list having a common motion vector (a position in the merge candidate list that points to a position coded in global motion compensation mode [0093]), …;
decode the first plurality (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]) of coding units (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) using the common motion vector (global motion compensation in a coded region [0037]) from the motion vector candidate lists (using the merge index, a position in the merge candidate list that points to a position coded in global motion compensation mode [0093]), whereby a picture region with common motion is reconstructed in the first region (segment a current picture into regions—global motion selected for region [0080]);
ascertain from the bitstream (parse the video bitstream at the decoder [0112]) individually determined motion vectors (the regions using the LMC mode, regular MVs can be applied to each block within the region, where the MVs can be explicitly signaled or inferred by prediction [0080]) for each coding unit (CTU, slice, tile [0037]) of the second (segment a current picture into regions—local motion selected for region [0080]) contiguous plurality (CTU, slice, tile [0037]), wherein adjacent coding units in the second contiguous plurality have different individually determined motion vectors (regular MVs can be applied to each block within the region, where the MVs can be explicitly signaled or inferred by prediction [0080]), each individually determined motion vector being one of a translational motion vector for translational motion (translation model, all pixels in the region have the same motion direction and magnitude [0006]-[0007]) or a control point motion vector (derived based on known motion vectors for different locations [0014]) for four parameter (scaling model has four parameters [0009]-[0011]) or six parameter affine motion (six parameter affine model [0012]-[0014]);
decode the second plurality of coding units (segment a current picture into regions—local motion selected for region [0080]) using the individually determined motion vectors (regular MVs can be applied to each block within the region [0080]), whereby local motion in the second region is reconstructed (where the MVs are inferred by prediction [0080]);
and decode the intra-predicted coding unit using a prediction from a previously decoded coding unit in the picture (intra prediction is used on a block basis [0004]).
Liu does not disclose, but Lee (US PG Publication 2017/0332099) teaches wherein the motion vector candidate lists (into the merge list [0281]) are ordered (order of candidates in the candidate list [0074]) such that the common motion vector is first (the most frequent motion vector is inserted first into the merge list [0281]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to order the global motion vector of Liu first in the merge list of Liu because Lee teaches that assigning higher priority to a merge candidate that is most likely to be used—and because persons of ordinary skill in the art know that global motion is most likely to be used in certain regions of the image—results in bit-savings and minimal encoder/decoder complexity increase [0033], improving the efficiency and quality of encoding.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, Liu (US PG Publication 2020/0206011) discloses motion vector being one of a translational motion vector (translational model [0006]-[0008]) or a control point motion vector for four parameter (scaling model has four parameters [0009]-[0011]) or six parameter affine motion (three known motion vectors for three different locations [0014]; six parameter affine model [0012]-[0014]).
Liu does not disclose but Lee (US PG Publication 2017/0332099) teaches a computer-readable recording medium storing an encoded bitstream (encoded data may be output from output interface 22 to a storage device [0036]).
The remainder of Claim 9 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to order the global motion vector of Liu first in the merge list of Liu because Lee teaches that assigning higher priority to a merge candidate that is most likely to be used—and because persons of ordinary skill in the art know that global motion is most likely to be used in certain regions of the image—results in bit-savings and minimal encoder/decoder complexity increase [0033], improving the efficiency and quality of encoding.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6084912 A - contiguous blocks with global motion, pixel recursive motion; primary reference. includes intra coding
US 20200413090 A1 – global motion based on camera motion vector
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights