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 .
Claims 1-4 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026; 08/20/2025; 06/13/2025; 04/03/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 1-4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,309,387 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for claiming the same methods of constructing an initial motion candidate list and then reconfiguring that list from reconstructed neighbor samples around the current block.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20170332099 A1).
Regarding claim 3, a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 3 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lee which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0084]-[0085]).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170332099 A1) in view of Chen (US 20180359483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an image decoding method, performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
deriving motion information candidates of a current block based on motion vectors of neighboring blocks of the current block (Video encoder 20 may derive a histogram of motion vector information for neighboring blocks relative to the current blocks (502). [0305]);
constructing a motion information candidate list for the current block based on the motion information candidates (Video encoder 20 may be further configured to construct a motion vector candidate list of merge candidates for the current block of video data based on motion information from the number of neighboring blocks relative to the current block. In some examples, the motion information considered is the derived histogram (504). [0305]);
deriving parameters of L motion information candidates among the motion information candidates ([0306] In another example of the disclosure, video encoder 20 may be configured to order a predetermined fixed subset of spatial merge candidates in the motion vector candidate list based on the derived histogram.);
constructing a modified motion information candidate list by comparing the parameters and rearranging the L motion information candidates (video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may be configured adaptively determine the order from the MV histogram. In another example, instead of checking each neighboring block (e.g., 4×4 spatial merge candidates), the re-ordering of spatial merging candidates is based on the size of prediction block (e.g., PU in HEVC), that contains the block used to derive the spatial merging candidates. [0281]);
deriving motion information of the current block based on the modified motion information candidate list (Video decoder 30 may then determine a current motion vector from the motion vector candidate list (556), [0316]);
deriving a prediction sample of the current block based on the motion information (decode the current block of video data using the current motion vector (558). [0316]); and
generating a reconstructed picture based on the prediction sample (decode the current block of video data using the current motion vector (558). [0316]),
wherein the L motion information candidates are a motion information candidate in first order to a motion information candidate in Lth order in the motion information candidate list,
wherein the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks include a motion vector of a spatial neighboring block adjacent to the current block ([0318] In another example of the disclosure, video decoder 30 may be configured to determine a fixed number of spatial merge candidates from the total number of neighboring blocks to add to the motion vector candidate list based on the derived histogram.), and
Lee does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Chen teaches wherein based on a spatial neighboring block not adjacent to the current block being included in a current rectangular region covering the current block, the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks include a motion vector of the spatial neighboring block not adjacent to the current block ([0181] FIG. 15 is a block diagram illustrating example non-adjacent blocks, in accordance with a technique of this disclosure. As shown in FIG. 15, the non-adjacent blocks 1500 are reconstructed blocks that are not immediately adjacent to a current block 1502. Fig. 20&21 show non-adjacent blocks in non-square region surrounding current block).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Chen and apply them to Lee. One would be motivated as such as to improve the candidate selection pool.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches an image encoding method, performed by a encoding apparatus, comprising:
deriving motion information candidates of a current block based on motion vectors of neighboring blocks of the current block (Video encoder 20 may derive a histogram of motion vector information for neighboring blocks relative to the current blocks (502). [0305]);
constructing a motion information candidate list for the current block based on the motion information candidates (Video encoder 20 may be further configured to construct a motion vector candidate list of merge candidates for the current block of video data based on motion information from the number of neighboring blocks relative to the current block. In some examples, the motion information considered is the derived histogram (504). [0305]);
deriving parameters of L motion information candidates among the motion information candidates ([0306] In another example of the disclosure, video encoder 20 may be configured to order a predetermined fixed subset of spatial merge candidates in the motion vector candidate list based on the derived histogram.);
constructing a modified motion information candidate list by comparing the parameters and rearranging the L motion information candidates (video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may be configured adaptively determine the order from the MV histogram. In another example, instead of checking each neighboring block (e.g., 4×4 spatial merge candidates), the re-ordering of spatial merging candidates is based on the size of prediction block (e.g., PU in HEVC), that contains the block used to derive the spatial merging candidates. [0281]);
selecting a motion information candidate for the current block based on the modified motion information candidate list (Video decoder 30 may then determine a current motion vector from the motion vector candidate list (556), [0316]);
encoding a motion information candidate index of the current block representing the selected motion information candidate (mode select unit 40 may determine which of the candidates is to be used to encode motion information of the current block, and encode a merge index representing the selected candidate. [0074]); and
encoding image information including the motion information candidate index (Video encoder 20 may signal an index (e.g., merge index) of the selected motion vector candidate to video decoder 30. [0124]),
wherein the L motion information candidates are a motion information candidate in first order to a motion information candidate in Lth order in the motion information candidate list,
wherein the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks include a motion vector of a spatial neighboring block adjacent to the current block ([0318] In another example of the disclosure, video decoder 30 may be configured to determine a fixed number of spatial merge candidates from the total number of neighboring blocks to add to the motion vector candidate list based on the derived histogram.), and
Lee does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Chen teaches wherein based on a spatial neighboring block not adjacent to the current block being included in a current rectangular region covering the current block, the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks include a motion vector of the spatial neighboring block not adjacent to the current block ([0181] FIG. 15 is a block diagram illustrating example non-adjacent blocks, in accordance with a technique of this disclosure. As shown in FIG. 15, the non-adjacent blocks 1500 are reconstructed blocks that are not immediately adjacent to a current block 1502. Fig. 20&21 show non-adjacent blocks in non-square region surrounding current block).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Chen and apply them to Lee. One would be motivated as such as to improve the candidate selection pool.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a transmission method for image data, the method comprising:
obtaining a bitstream of image information including a motion information candidate index of a current block representing a motion information candidate included in a modified motion information candidate list for the current block (Video decoder 30 may determine, based on information obtained from a bitstream, the index into the candidate list. In addition, video decoder 30 may generate the same candidate list and may determine, based on the index, the selected candidate. Video decoder 30 may then use the motion information of the selected candidate to generate a predictive block for the current video unit. [0010]); and
transmitting the data including the bitstream of the image information including the motion information candidate index of the current block (Fig. 1: 16),
wherein the modified motion information candidate list for the current block is constructed by deriving motion information candidates of a current block based on motion vectors of neighboring blocks of the current block, constructing a motion information candidate list for the current block based on the motion information candidates, deriving parameters of L motion information candidates among the motion information candidates, comparing the parameters and rearranging the L motion information candidates (video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may be configured adaptively determine the order from the MV histogram. In another example, instead of checking each neighboring block (e.g., 4×4 spatial merge candidates), the re-ordering of spatial merging candidates is based on the size of prediction block (e.g., PU in HEVC), that contains the block used to derive the spatial merging candidates. [0281])
wherein the L motion information candidates are a motion information candidate in first order to a motion information candidate in Lth order in the motion information candidate list,
wherein the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks include a motion vector of a spatial neighboring block adjacent to the current block ([0318] In another example of the disclosure, video decoder 30 may be configured to determine a fixed number of spatial merge candidates from the total number of neighboring blocks to add to the motion vector candidate list based on the derived histogram.), and
Lee does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Chen teaches wherein based on a spatial neighboring block not adjacent to the current block being included in a current rectangular region covering the current block, the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks include a motion vector of the spatial neighboring block not adjacent to the current block ([0181] FIG. 15 is a block diagram illustrating example non-adjacent blocks, in accordance with a technique of this disclosure. As shown in FIG. 15, the non-adjacent blocks 1500 are reconstructed blocks that are not immediately adjacent to a current block 1502. Fig. 20&21 show non-adjacent blocks in non-square region surrounding current block).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Chen and apply them to Lee. One would be motivated as such as to improve the candidate selection pool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 57127227384. 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.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights