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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 7/6/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen describes an affine parameter buffer and not a motion data line buffer as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Affine parameters are motion data. Therefore the buffer that stores those parameters are storing motion data. Rejection is maintained.
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 21, 31 and 39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12289460 (18544400). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is anticipated by the conflicting patent.
Claims 21, 31 and 39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11882300 (18155403). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of “receiving data for a video; and providing a coded video bit stream in response to the data, wherein the coded video bit stream comprises coding trees comprised of coding units comprised of prediction units that are encoded using various prediction modes including affine mode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 21, 31 and 39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11595673 (17004782). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of “receiving data for a video; and providing a coded video bit stream in response to the data, wherein the coded video bit stream comprises coding trees comprised of coding units comprised of prediction units that are encoded using various prediction modes including affine mode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 21, 31 and 39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10798394 (16453672). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added the following limitations of “receiving data for a video; and providing a coded video bit stream in response to the data, wherein the coded video bit stream comprises coding trees comprised of coding units comprised of prediction units that are encoded using various prediction modes including affine mode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
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) 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A2 as being anticipated by US 20180192069 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 39, Chen discloses a device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a motion data line buffer ([0146]); and
a video decoder (Fig. 1, element 30), configured to derive from an input video bitstream ([0071]), one or more motion vectors of a first prediction unit of a first coding tree unit using an affine model, based on a plurality of motion vectors of a second one or more prediction units neighboring the first prediction unit stored in the motion data line buffer(([0077], wherein MV are derived for a specific prediction unit (PU); [0091], wherein the MV can be determined by the affine motion model[0095], wherein deriving MV based on affine transform; [0106], wherein MV is derived according to the affine motion model),, and decode one or more sub-blocks of the first prediction unit based on the one or more control point motion vectors ([0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 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.
Claims 21-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patent, set forth in this Office action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights