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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2025 is 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.
Instant Application (US19/193519)
US11425410
Claim 1: A video picture prediction method, comprising: parsing a bitstream to obtain a first identifier; parsing the bitstream to obtain a third identifier, when the first identifier indicates that an affine motion model based motion compensation is enabled for a video sequence including a to- be-processed block, wherein a value of the third identifier is a true value or a false value; wherein the true value indicates that the affine motion model comprises a 4-parameter affine model and a 6-parameter affine motion model and the false value indicates that the affine motion model does not comprise the 6-parameter affine motion model; parsing the bitstream to obtain a second identifier, when the first identifier indicates that the affine motion model-based motion compensation is enabled for the video sequence, and the to- be-processed block meets a preset condition for inter prediction using the affine motion model; when the second identifier indicates that an affine motion model-based merge mode is used for inter prediction of the to-be-processed block and when the value of the third identifier is the true value, constructing a first candidate motion vector list, wherein the first candidate motion vector list comprises a first element and a second element, and the first element comprises motion information of three control points for constructing the 6-parameter affine motion model and the second element comprises only motion information of two control points for constructing the 4-parameter affine motion model; or when the second identifier indicates that an affine motion model-based merge mode is used for inter prediction of the to-be-processed block and when the value of the third identifier is a false value, constructing a second candidate motion vector list, wherein the second candidate motion vector list comprises the second element, and the second element comprises only the motion information of two control points for constructing the 4-parameter affine motion model.
Claim 1: A method comprising: parsing a bitstream to obtain a first identifier; determining that the first identifier indicates that an affine motion model based motion compensation is enabled for a video sequence, wherein the video sequence comprises a picture block to be processed; in response to determining that the first identifier indicates that the affine motion model based motion compensation is enabled for the video sequence, parsing the bitstream to obtain a third identifier, wherein a value of the third identifier is a true value or a false value, and wherein the true value indicates that the affine motion model comprises a 6-parameter affine motion model and the false value indicates that the affine motion model does not comprise the 6- parameter affine motion model; determining that the picture block satisfies a condition for inter prediction using the affine motion model; in response to determining that the first identifier indicates that the affine motion model based motion compensation is enabled for the video sequence and the picture block satisfies the condition, parsing the bitstream to obtain a second identifier; determining that the second identifier indicates that an affine motion model-based advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode is used for inter prediction of the picture block and the value of the third identifier is the true value; in response to determining that the second identifier indicates that the AMVP mode is used for inter prediction of the picture block and the value of the third identifier is the true value, parsing the bitstream to obtain a fourth identifier; determining that a value of the fourth identifier is a true value or a false value; in response to determining that the value of the fourth identifier is the true value: constructing a 3-tuple list as a candidate motion vector predictor list, wherein the 3- tuple list comprises one or more 3-tuples, and wherein each of the one or more 3-tuples represents motion information of three control points; and determining that the affine motion model is the 6-parameter affine motion model; and in response to determining that the value of the fourth identifier is the false value: constructing a 2-tuple list as a candidate motion vector predictor list, wherein the 2- tuple list comprises one or more 2-tuples, and wherein each of the one or more 2-tuples represents motion information of two control points; and determining that the affine motion model is the 4-parameter affine motion model; and performing inter prediction of the picture block based on the candidate motion vector predictor list.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-38 of U.S. Patent No. 11425410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate different control point values during video processing in AMVP mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed towards an abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or significantly more. The claim is directed to abstract ideas and mental processes (parsing, evaluating, organizing data) implemented on a generic computer without any technological improvement to computer functioning or a particular machine. The claim merely recites conditional parsing and data organization — routine software operations that do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Appropriate correction 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zou et al. (US20170332095) (hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream 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 memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the 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 Zou which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Zou discloses, a bitstream of compressed video data, including a computer readable storage medium storing the compressed non-transitory video data (0007-0011, memory storing video data including bitstream).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are 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 including the resolution of any and all 35 USC 112, 35 USC 101 and double patenting matters.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closes prior art of record is Zou et al. (US20170332095) (hereinafter Zou). Zou discloses a video picture prediction method, comprising: parsing a bitstream to obtain a first identifier; parsing the bitstream to obtain a third identifier, when the first identifier indicates that an affine motion model based motion compensation is enabled for a video sequence including and parsing the bitstream to obtain a second identifier, when the first identifier indicates that the affine motion model-based motion compensation is enabled for the video sequence, and the to- be-processed block meets a preset condition for inter prediction using the affine motion model; when the second identifier indicates that an affine motion model-based merge mode is used for inter prediction of the to-be-processed block and when the value of the third identifier is the true value, constructing a first candidate motion vector list (Figs. 7-11, 0040, 0114-0132, 0152-0159; video processing using different control points relating to affine motion prediction models).
However, the prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose when the value of the third identifier is the true value, constructing a first candidate motion vector list, wherein the first candidate motion vector list comprises a first element and a second element, and the first element comprises motion information of three control points for constructing the 6-parameter affine motion model and the second element comprises only motion information of two control points for constructing the 4-parameter affine motion model; or when the second identifier indicates that an affine motion model-based merge mode is used for inter prediction of the to-be-processed block and when the value of the third identifier is a false value, constructing a second candidate motion vector list, wherein the second candidate motion vector list comprises the second element, and the second element comprises only the motion information of two control points for constructing the 4-parameter affine motion model, when taken in the environment of the independent claims.
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 TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm.
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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/TALHA M NAWAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights