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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2025 was filed. The submission 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.
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, and 19 of copending Application No. 19/201,813 in view of CHONG IN SUK et al. (Hereafter, “Chong”) [WO 2024/254037 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 1 below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Table 1: Instant Application No. 19/201,821 vs. Co-Pending Application No. 19/201,813
Instant Application No. 19/201,821 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
Co-Pending Application No. 19/201,813 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; identifying a set of reference frames for a current frame of the plurality of frames; selecting a primary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame or a signaled primary reference frame; selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled; obtaining respective contexts for the primary reference frame and the secondary reference frame; initializing a current frame context for the current frame by performing a weighted average of the respective contexts; entropy decoding one or more syntax elements for the current frame using the current frame context; and reconstructing the current frame using information of the one or more syntax elements.
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; identifying a plurality of reference frames for a current frame of the plurality of frames; obtaining respective contexts for the plurality of reference frames; initializing a current frame context for the current frame by performing a weighted average of the respective contexts using a set of respective weights, wherein the set of respective weights comprises fixed weights; entropy decoding one or more syntax elements for the current frame using the current frame context; and reconstructing the current frame using the one or more syntax elements.
Claim 14 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 16 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 19 is the same as claim 14 but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claim 19 is the same as claim 14 but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the co-pending application are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the co-pending application.
The co-pending application fails to explicitly disclose selecting a primary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame or a signaled primary reference frame; selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled.
Chong discloses selecting a primary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame ([0015] the generated reference frame is a temporally interpolated picture reference frame generated using a backward reference frame of the current frame and a forward reference frame of the current frame [0037] One recent approach for bi-directional prediction uses a temporally interpolated picture (TIP) reference frame. A TIP reference frame is a reference frame generated by interpolating reference blocks from a forward reference frame and a backward reference frame (e.g., as the nearest future and past reference frames relative to the current frame). [0038] indicating whether or not the TIP mode should be used for the given frame) or a signaled primary reference frame ([0036] In particular, a reference frame may be a forward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for forward prediction relative to the sequence) or a backward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for backward prediction relative to the sequence). One or more forward and/or backward reference frames can be used to encode or decode a block.); selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled ([0036] In particular, a reference frame may be a forward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for forward prediction relative to the sequence) or a backward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for backward prediction relative to the sequence). One or more forward and/or backward reference frames can be used to encode or decode a block.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the teachings of Chong in order to substantially improve the quality of prediction and thus the overall compression performance for the subject video stream. [See Chong].
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, and 19 of copending Application No. 19/201,840 in view of CHONG IN SUK et al. (Hereafter, “Chong”) [WO 2024/254037 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 2 below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Table 2: Instant Application No. 19/201,821 vs. Co-Pending Application No. 19/201,840
Instant Application No. 19/201,821 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
Co-Pending Application No. 19/201,840 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; identifying a set of reference frames for a current frame of the plurality of frames; selecting a primary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame or a signaled primary reference frame; selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled; obtaining respective contexts for the primary reference frame and the secondary reference frame; initializing a current frame context for the current frame by performing a weighted average of the respective contexts; entropy decoding one or more syntax elements for the current frame using the current frame context; and reconstructing the current frame using information of the one or more syntax elements.
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; deriving a derived primary reference frame from a set of reference frames for a current frame of the plurality of frames; parsing a signaled primary reference frame for the current frame; obtaining respective contexts for the signaled primary reference frame and the derived primary reference frame; initializing a current frame context for the current frame by performing a weighted average of the respective contexts; entropy decoding one or more syntax elements for the current frame using the current frame context; and reconstructing the current frame using information of the one or more syntax elements.
Claim 14 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 16 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 19 is the same as claim 14 but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claim 19 is the same as claim 14 but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
The co-pending application fails to explicitly disclose selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled.
Chong discloses selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled ([0015] the generated reference frame is a temporally interpolated picture reference frame generated using a backward reference frame of the current frame and a forward reference frame of the current frame [0036] In particular, a reference frame may be a forward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for forward prediction relative to the sequence) or a backward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for backward prediction relative to the sequence). One or more forward and/or backward reference frames can be used to encode or decode a block. [0037] One recent approach for bi-directional prediction uses a temporally interpolated picture (TIP) reference frame. A TIP reference frame is a reference frame generated by interpolating reference blocks from a forward reference frame and a backward reference frame (e.g., as the nearest future and past reference frames relative to the current frame). [0038] indicating whether or not the TIP mode should be used for the given frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the teachings of Chong in order to substantially improve the quality of prediction and thus the overall compression performance for the subject video stream. [See Chong].
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 19/319,666 in view of CHONG IN SUK et al. (Hereafter, “Chong”) [WO 2024/254037 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 3 below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Table 3: Instant Application No. 19/201,821 vs. Co-Pending Application No. 19/319,666
Instant Application No. 19/201,821 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
Co-Pending Application No. 19/319,666 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; identifying a set of reference frames for a current frame of the plurality of frames; selecting a primary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame or a signaled primary reference frame; selecting a secondary reference frame from the set of reference frames, wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled; obtaining respective contexts for the primary reference frame and the secondary reference frame; initializing a current frame context for the current frame by performing a weighted average of the respective contexts; entropy decoding one or more syntax elements for the current frame using the current frame context; and reconstructing the current frame using information of the one or more syntax elements.
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; identifying a set of reference frames for a current frame of the plurality of frames; when a first reference frame from the set of reference frames has an index that is closest to an index of the current frame, selecting the first reference frame as a primary reference frame; obtaining respective contexts for the primary reference frame and a secondary reference frame; initializing a current frame context for the current frame by performing a weighted average of the respective contexts; entropy decoding one or more syntax elements for the current frame using the current frame context; and reconstructing the current frame using information of the one or more syntax elements.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising, when a second reference frame from the set of reference frames has a second closest index to the index of the current frame, selecting the second reference frame as the secondary reference frame.
Claim 14 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 13 and 15 are the same as claims 1 and 3 but in encoding form.
Claim 19 is the same as claim 14 but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claims 18 and 20 are the same as claims 13 and 15 but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the co-pending application are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the co-pending application.
The co-pending application fails to explicitly disclose wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame or a signaled primary reference frame; wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled.
Chong discloses wherein the primary reference frame is a derived primary reference frame ([0015] the generated reference frame is a temporally interpolated picture reference frame generated using a backward reference frame of the current frame and a forward reference frame of the current frame [0037] One recent approach for bi-directional prediction uses a temporally interpolated picture (TIP) reference frame. A TIP reference frame is a reference frame generated by interpolating reference blocks from a forward reference frame and a backward reference frame (e.g., as the nearest future and past reference frames relative to the current frame). [0038] indicating whether or not the TIP mode should be used for the given frame) or a signaled primary reference frame ([0036] In particular, a reference frame may be a forward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for forward prediction relative to the sequence) or a backward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for backward prediction relative to the sequence). One or more forward and/or backward reference frames can be used to encode or decode a block.); wherein selection of the secondary reference frame is based on whether the primary reference frame is derived or signaled ([0036] In particular, a reference frame may be a forward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for forward prediction relative to the sequence) or a backward reference frame (i.e., a frame used for backward prediction relative to the sequence). One or more forward and/or backward reference frames can be used to encode or decode a block.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the teachings of Chong in order to substantially improve the quality of prediction and thus the overall compression performance for the subject video stream. [See Chong].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising” [Claim 1] and “of video encoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising” [Claim 14] have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because preambles are ordinarily not afforded patentable weight or typically recite Intended use which ordinarily receives no patentable weight, but the "method of" raises Indefinite metes and bounds of a method claim with structure creating and Indefinite conclusion if the structures are performing the method as in an apparatus claim or if a method is being Functionally Analyzed or not. Due to the Indefinite conclusion of interpretation of the claim, the claims have Indefinite metes and bounds. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 15-18, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHONG IN SUK et al. (Hereafter, “Chong”) [WO 2024/254037 A1].
In regards to claim 19, the claim limitations and the recitation of, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method…” is a non-functional descriptive material, wherein no functional relationship exists between the storage medium and data. “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 video bitstream in claim 19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. Therefore, the structure data is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing a video bitstream and is anticipated by Chong which recites a storage medium storing data ([0010] non-transitory computer readable medium according to an implementation of this disclosure has stored thereon an encoded bitstream).
In regards to claim 20, the dependent claim does not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus is similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if would be allowable if rewritten or amended in order to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 122 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections as set forth in this Office Action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights