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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA on 05/08/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unidirectional prediction module configured to” and “determining module configured to” in claims 6-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laroche et al. (US 20140241436 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Laroche et al. teaches a computer device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when executing the computer program, the processor is configured to implement operations (Paragraphs 91-92) comprising:
when an inter prediction of a current coding unit is performed (Paragraph 7), obtaining a first rate- distortion cost in a skip mode and a second rate-distortion cost in a merge mode, and determining a current best rate-distortion cost based on the first rate-distortion cost and the second rate-distortion cost (Paragraphs 160-184; clearly teaches comparing rate distortion in both merge and skip modes, and deciding best candidate); and
performing a unidirectional prediction in two directions sequentially, and traversing several neighboring reference frames in time domain sequentially when a unidirectional prediction in one direction is performed, wherein the following steps are performed during each reference frame traversal (Paragraphs 17-20):
constructing a prediction motion vector list, and determining an actual motion vector and a motion vector difference of a current reference frame by searching the prediction motion vector list, wherein the motion vector difference is a difference between a prediction motion vector and the actual motion vector (Paragraphs 10-13; Paragraphs 16-20; Paragraph 39; Paragraph 71; Paragraph 128);
determining a minimum rate-distortion cost of the current reference frame, and determining a quantity of bits required for coding the motion vector difference (Paragraph 26; Paragraphs 32-36; Paragraph 152; Paragraphs 160-184); and
terminating traversal of the reference frame and performing a unidirectional prediction in a next direction or ending the unidirectional prediction when a traversal of the current reference frame is completed and the minimum rate-distortion cost and the quantity of bits meet a preset condition (Paragraph 26; Paragraphs 32-40; Paragraph 78; Paragraph 152; Paragraphs 160-184; Paragraph 200).
Regarding Claim 12, Laroche et al. teaches the computer device according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: proceeding to a traversal of a next reference frame when the traversal of the current reference frame is completed and the minimum rate-distortion cost and the quantity of bits do not meet the preset condition (Paragraph 26; Paragraphs 32-40; Paragraphs 52-68; Paragraph 152; Paragraphs 160-184).
Regarding Claim 13, Laroche et al. teaches the computer device according to claim 12, wherein the preset condition comprises: the minimum rate-distortion cost is greater than N times the current best rate-distortion cost, and the current best rate-distortion cost is greater than M times a product of the quantity of bits and a Lagrange multiplier used by the current coding unit, wherein N and M are greater than 1 (Paragraph 26; Paragraphs 32-40; Paragraphs 51-68; Paragraph 152; Paragraphs 159-184).
Regarding Claim 14, Laroche et al. teaches the computer device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a motion complexity of the current coding unit; and determining a value of N based on the motion complexity (Paragraph 78; Paragraphs 160-184; Paragraph 200).
Regarding Claim 15, Laroche et al. teaches the computer device according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a prediction residual of the current coding unit when a rate-distortion cost is calculated; and calculating the rate-distortion cost based on the prediction residual, the quantity of bits, and a Lagrange multiplier of the current coding unit (Paragraph 26; Paragraphs 32-40; Paragraphs 51-68; Paragraph 71; Paragraph 125-128; Paragraph 152; Paragraphs 159-184).
Regarding Claims 1-5, these claims are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 11-15, and are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Apparatus claims 6-10 contain similar limitations to those of computer system claims 11-15 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Non-Transitory Computer Readable Medium claims 16-20 are drawn to storing a computer program which causes a processor to perform the method of claims 1-5 and are rejected as above. Laroche et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the reference frame processing method (Paragraphs 91-92).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights