DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 16 of the issued Patent No. US 12,289,443 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained below;
Examiner’s Reasoning for the provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Instant Application vs. Conflicting Patent - claim analysis
Specifically, all the limiting components of the method at the conflicting patent claim 16, are defined and are encompassed within the limitations claimed by the instant claim 1.
The difference remarked between the instant claim 1 and the claim 16 of the conflicting patent by additionally reciting;
“1. A decoding apparatus for an image decoding, the decoding apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to: ”,
is considered obvious in view of the ordinary skilled in the art under the premise that it is known in the art that a video coding device would have implicitly comprise the supplementary recited “memory” connected to a “processor”, as inherited components deemed to implement the claimed decoding.
Thus, the invention at instant claim 1, is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the conflicting patent at claim 16.
It has been held by the Court that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 16 of the conflicting pending application for patent, it is deemed patentably indistinct from the named claim 1 of the conflicting patent, as detailed below.
Corrective action is required.
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 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 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.
(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.
The applied reference does not have a common inventor with the instant application.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Xiaozhong Xu et al., (hereinafter Xu) (US 10,440,378) in lieu of Prov.#62/699,372.
Re Claim 1. Xu discloses, a decoding apparatus for an image decoding, the decoding apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a memory (memory 357 Fig.3, Col.8 Lin.13); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor (processor, Col.14 Lin.63) configured to:
obtain prediction mode information from a bitstream (prediction information Col.7 Lin.35, for intra-prediction information, element 672 or for inter-prediction information, element 680 Fig.6, Col.14 Lin.1-11 Col.7 Lin.35, for intra-prediction information, element 672 or for inter-prediction information, element 680 Fig.6, Col.14 Lin.1-11)) ;
determine a prediction mode for a current block in a current picture based on the prediction mode information (determining a prediction mode to be intra/inter mode based on information at Fig.6 Col.7 Lin.35, for intra-prediction information, element 672 or for inter-prediction information, element 680 Fig.6, Col.14 Lin.1-11);
derive a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidate set for the current block (deriving HMVP candidates Col.17 Lin.8-14, or at least at Lin.26-60);
configure a motion information candidate list for the current block based on the prediction mode for the current block and an HMVP candidate comprised in the HMVP candidate set (getting the motion vector predictor from the HMVP candidate list, Col.17 Lin.8-18);
derive motion information of the current block based on the motion information candidate list for the current block (derive the motion vector from a candidate list based on previously checked motion information, Col.15 Lin.8-25);
generate prediction samples for the current block based on the motion information of the current block (generating the prediction samples for the current block based on MVx, and MVPx, motion vectors, per Col.16 Lin.46-55 Fig.9); and
generate reconstructed samples based on the prediction samples, wherein the current picture is partitioned into one or more tiles (the partitioned picture is segmented in tiles, Col.4 Lin.15-16 Fig.12), wherein the HMVP candidate set is updated based on motion information of a previous block in a CTU row in a current tile (the reconstructed samples are based on previous block based on the spatially shifted from the current block, per Fig.7 Col.15 Lin.8-25 from the HMVP updated buffer with motion information of the coded current block, Col.19 Lin.53-67 and Fig.13, or decoding based on updated HMVP buffer motion of the decoded current block, i.e., a previous block in the CTU, Col.24 Lin.1-10),
wherein the CTU row comprising the current block, wherein for CTUs of the CTU row in the current tile (the CTU rows e.g., CTU_row[1], to CTU_row_[2] in the tile e.g., CTU_00….CTU_23 in Fig.11 and 12), the HMVP candidate set is initialized only at a specific CTU among the CTUs of the CTU row in the current tile (where the HMVP candidate is initialized only at a specific CTU within the CTU rows, per Fig.13, Col.18 Lin.3-23),
wherein the specific CTU is a firstly-ordered CTU among the CTUs of the CTU row in the current tile (the CTU is in the first to be initialized, Col.18 Lin.16-19), and
wherein based on the current picture being partitioned into the one or more tiles, the HMVP candidate set is initialized per each CTU row in each tile (initialization to zero of the HMVP candidate(s) occurs to each partitioned tiles per each CTU row of picture 100, at least at Col.18 Lin.20-23 or Col.19 Lin.10-33 or as in step S1310 of Fig.13 Col.19 Lin.53-67).
Re Claim 2. This claim represents the encoding apparatus (Xu: encoder 445 at Fig.4) for an image encoding, implementing each and every limitation at the prediction loop, in the same order, of the decoding apparatus of claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 3. An apparatus for transmitting data for an image, generated at the encoding apparatus and transmitting (Xu: the bitstream generated by encoder 445, is transmitted by block 440 in Fig.4), the encoded bitstream according to the limitations recited at the encoding apparatus of claim 2, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below.
US 2020/0014948; NPL: “CE4-relater: History-based Motion Vector Prediction” Doc.JVET-K0104-v1, Ljubljana, Oct. 10-18 2018.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DRAMOS . KALAPODAS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 16 of the issued Patent No. US 12,289,443 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained below;
Examiner’s Reasoning for the provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Instant Application vs. Conflicting Patent - claim analysis
Specifically, all the limiting components of the method at the conflicting patent claim 16, are defined and are encompassed within the limitations claimed by the instant claim 1.
The difference remarked between the instant claim 1 and the claim 16 of the conflicting patent by additionally reciting;
“1. A decoding apparatus for an image decoding, the decoding apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to: ”,
is considered obvious in view of the ordinary skilled in the art under the premise that it is known in the art that a video coding device would have implicitly comprise the supplementary recited “memory” connected to a “processor”, as inherited components deemed to implement the claimed decoding.
Thus, the invention at instant claim 1, is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the conflicting patent at claim 16.
It has been held by the Court that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 16 of the conflicting pending application for patent, it is deemed patentably indistinct from the named claim 1 of the conflicting patent, as detailed below.
Corrective action is required.
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 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 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.
(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.
The applied reference does not have a common inventor with the instant application.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Xiaozhong Xu et al., (hereinafter Xu) (US 10,440,378) in lieu of Prov.#62/699,372.
Re Claim 1. Xu discloses, a decoding apparatus for an image decoding, the decoding apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a memory (memory 357 Fig.3, Col.8 Lin.13); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor (processor, Col.14 Lin.63) configured to:
obtain prediction mode information from a bitstream (prediction information Col.7 Lin.35, for intra-prediction information, element 672 or for inter-prediction information, element 680 Fig.6, Col.14 Lin.1-11 Col.7 Lin.35, for intra-prediction information, element 672 or for inter-prediction information, element 680 Fig.6, Col.14 Lin.1-11)) ;
determine a prediction mode for a current block in a current picture based on the prediction mode information (determining a prediction mode to be intra/inter mode based on information at Fig.6 Col.7 Lin.35, for intra-prediction information, element 672 or for inter-prediction information, element 680 Fig.6, Col.14 Lin.1-11);
derive a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidate set for the current block (deriving HMVP candidates Col.17 Lin.8-14, or at least at Lin.26-60);
configure a motion information candidate list for the current block based on the prediction mode for the current block and an HMVP candidate comprised in the HMVP candidate set (getting the motion vector predictor from the HMVP candidate list, Col.17 Lin.8-18);
derive motion information of the current block based on the motion information candidate list for the current block (derive the motion vector from a candidate list based on previously checked motion information, Col.15 Lin.8-25);
generate prediction samples for the current block based on the motion information of the current block (generating the prediction samples for the current block based on MVx, and MVPx, motion vectors, per Col.16 Lin.46-55 Fig.9); and
generate reconstructed samples based on the prediction samples, wherein the current picture is partitioned into one or more tiles (the partitioned picture is segmented in tiles, Col.4 Lin.15-16 Fig.12), wherein the HMVP candidate set is updated based on motion information of a previous block in a CTU row in a current tile (the reconstructed samples are based on previous block based on the spatially shifted from the current block, per Fig.7 Col.15 Lin.8-25 from the HMVP updated buffer with motion information of the coded current block, Col.19 Lin.53-67 and Fig.13, or decoding based on updated HMVP buffer motion of the decoded current block, i.e., a previous block in the CTU, Col.24 Lin.1-10),
wherein the CTU row comprising the current block, wherein for CTUs of the CTU row in the current tile (the CTU rows e.g., CTU_row[1], to CTU_row_[2] in the tile e.g., CTU_00….CTU_23 in Fig.11 and 12), the HMVP candidate set is initialized only at a specific CTU among the CTUs of the CTU row in the current tile (where the HMVP candidate is initialized only at a specific CTU within the CTU rows, per Fig.13, Col.18 Lin.3-23),
wherein the specific CTU is a firstly-ordered CTU among the CTUs of the CTU row in the current tile (the CTU is in the first to be initialized, Col.18 Lin.16-19), and
wherein based on the current picture being partitioned into the one or more tiles, the HMVP candidate set is initialized per each CTU row in each tile (initialization to zero of the HMVP candidate(s) occurs to each partitioned tiles per each CTU row of picture 100, at least at Col.18 Lin.20-23 or Col.19 Lin.10-33 or as in step S1310 of Fig.13 Col.19 Lin.53-67).
Re Claim 2. This claim represents the encoding apparatus (Xu: encoder 445 at Fig.4) for an image encoding, implementing each and every limitation at the prediction loop, in the same order, of the decoding apparatus of claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 3. An apparatus for transmitting data for an image, generated at the encoding apparatus and transmitting (Xu: the bitstream generated by encoder 445, is transmitted by block 440 in Fig.4), the encoded bitstream according to the limitations recited at the encoding apparatus of claim 2, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below.
US 2020/0014948; NPL: “CE4-relater: History-based Motion Vector Prediction” Doc.JVET-K0104-v1, Ljubljana, Oct. 10-18 2018.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487