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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 13 March 2025 and 25 July 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12256082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to utilize processes at various levels of resolution.
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)(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) 22-30, 25, 29-30, 32, 34-35, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 9872024 B2).
Regarding Claims 22, 29, 34, and 39, Sun discloses a method performed on a device for video encoding/decoding, comprising: a processor configured to: obtain a motion vector (MV) difference associated with a first and second blocks [Sun: Claim 1: wherein the deblock filter includes a determination means for determining whether or not to conduct filtering at a boundary between two adjacent blocks in the reconstructed image, where: (1) filtering is conducted when at least one of the two adjacent blocks is intra-coded, and (2) filtering is not conducted when both of the two adjacent blocks are not intra-coded, a non-zero transformation coefficient is not coded in both of the two adjacent blocks, the two adjacent blocks are predicted by a same reference frame, and an absolute value of a difference between motion vectors of the two adjacent blocks is smaller than a specified threshold value, wherein the filtering modifies the pixel values at the boundary between the two adjacent blocks in the reconstructed image when at least one of the two adjacent blocks is intra-coded], wherein the second block is adjacent to the first block [Sun: Claim 1: An image decoding apparatus for filtering a boundary between two adjacent blocks in a reconstructed image]; obtain a sample value for a boundary pixel of the first block based on the MV difference [Sun: Claim 1: an absolute value of a difference between motion vectors of the two adjacent blocks]; and decode the first block based on the obtained sample value for the boundary pixel [Sun: Claim 1: is smaller than a specified threshold value, wherein the filtering modifies the pixel values at the boundary between the two adjacent blocks in the reconstructed image when at least one of the two adjacent blocks is intra-coded].
Regarding Claims 23, 30, 35, and 40, Sun discloses all the limitations of Claims 22, 29, 34, and 39, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Sun discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a reference picture of the first block and a reference picture of the second block; and obtain a MV of the second block, wherein the MV difference is obtained using the MV of the second block based on determining that the reference picture of the first block is the same as the reference picture of the second block [Sun: Claim 1: the two adjacent blocks are predicted by a same reference frame].
Regarding Claims 25 and 32, Sun discloses all the limitations of Claims 22 and 29, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Sun discloses wherein the sample value for the boundary pixel of the first block is determined further based on a sample value for a pixel that is adjacent to the boundary pixel [Sun: Claim 1: an absolute value of a difference between motion vectors of the two adjacent blocks is smaller than a specified threshold value].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 26-28, 31, 33, 36, and 37-38 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While MV manipulation between boundary pixels is well-known, the specific adjustments base on the specific variables in the specific instances has not been found in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights