DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is in response to application no. 19/237,966 filed on 06/13/2025. 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
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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. US 12363308.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of pat. No. ‘308 teaches all of the limitations of the current claim 1. It is noted that the current claim 1 requires “when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or includes a right boundary of a reference picture, updating a maximum value in a x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a x-axis coordinate of the right boundary of the reference picture and updating a minimum value in the x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by subtracting the reference range from the x-axis coordinate of the right boundary of the reference picture…when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or including a lower boundary of the reference picture, updating a maximum value in a y- axis coordinate of the first reference area to a y-axis coordinate of the lower boundary of the reference picture and updating a minimum value in the y-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by subtracting the reference range from the y- axis coordinate of the lower boundary of the reference picture…” while the cited pat. ‘308 claim 1 recites “when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or includes a left boundary of a reference picture, updating a minimum value in a x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a x-axis coordinate of the left boundary of the reference picture and updating a maximum value in the x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by adding the reference range to the x-axis coordinate of the left boundary of the reference picture…when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or including an upper boundary of the reference picture, updating a minimum value in a y-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a y-axis coordinate of the upper boundary of the reference picture and updating a maximum value in the y-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by adding the reference range to the y-axis coordinate of the upper boundary of the reference picture…”. However, the difference between the current claim 1 and the cited pat. ‘308 claim 1 does not render the current claimed subject matter patentably distinct since a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the current claimed invention through mere predictable rearrangement of claimed elements of the cited pat. ‘308 according to their established function and recognized function, for reconstructing the encoded video data.
Regarding the current claim 2, the current claim is drawn to a video encoding method and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to a similar reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 the cited pat. ‘308 teaches “[a] method of storing a bitstream generated by video encoding into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Table 1 below shows the comparison between the current claim 1 and the cited pat. ‘308 claim 1.
TABLE 1
Current claims
Pat. No. US 12363308 claims
1. A video decoding method comprising: determining a center motion vector of a current block by using a base motion vector of the current block based on affine model-based inter-prediction being performed in the current block; determining a first reference area with a reference range to be centered on a point indicated by a central motion vector of the current block, the reference range determined corresponding to a size of the current block; when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or includes a right boundary of a reference picture, updating a maximum value in a x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a x-axis coordinate of the right boundary of the reference picture and updating a minimum value in the x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by subtracting the reference range from the x-axis coordinate of the right boundary of the reference picture, and determining prediction samples of sub-blocks of the current block based on a second reference area with the updated minimum value in the x-axis coordinate and the updated maximum value in the x-axis coordinate in the reference picture; when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or including a lower boundary of the reference picture, updating a maximum value in a y- axis coordinate of the first reference area to a y-axis coordinate of the lower boundary of the reference picture and updating a minimum value in the y-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by subtracting the reference range from the y- axis coordinate of the lower boundary of the reference picture, and determining prediction samples of sub-blocks of the current block based on a third reference area with the updated minimum value in the y-axis coordinate and the updated maximum value in the y-axis coordinate in the reference picture; and determining reconstruction samples of the current block by using the prediction samples of the current block.
1. A video decoding method comprising: determining a center motion vector of a current block by using a base motion vector of the current block based on affine model-based inter-prediction being performed in the current block; determining a first reference area with a reference range to be centered on a point indicated by a central motion vector of the current block, the reference range determined corresponding to a size of the current block; when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or includes a left boundary of a reference picture, updating a minimum value in a x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a x-axis coordinate of the left boundary of the reference picture and updating a maximum value in the x-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by adding the reference range to the x-axis coordinate of the left boundary of the reference picture, and determining prediction samples of sub-blocks of the current block based on a second reference area with the updated minimum value in the x-axis coordinate and the updated maximum value in the x-axis coordinate in the reference picture; when the first reference area with the reference range deviates from or including an upper boundary of the reference picture, updating a minimum value in a y-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a y-axis coordinate of the upper boundary of the reference picture and updating a maximum value in the y-axis coordinate of the first reference area to a value obtained by adding the reference range to the y-axis coordinate of the upper boundary of the reference picture, and determining prediction samples of sub-blocks of the current block based on a third reference area with the updated minimum value in the y-axis coordinate and the updated maximum value in the y-axis coordinate in the reference picture; and determining reconstruction samples of the current block by using the prediction samples of the current block.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 20190082193 A1).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “[a] method of storing a bitstream generated by video encoding into a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium, the method comprising…” The claim is applying product-by-process type claim language, where the bitstream is being described as a product that is the result of the encoding method process. The method steps are not required elements of the computer-readable storage medium because they only describe the scope of the product, which in this claim is the bitstream. The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05.
The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the relationship of the contents of the bitstream in terms of how video content can be encoded into a bitstream, however there is no functional relationship between the contents of the information in the bitstream and the storage of that bitstream of the medium.
“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”. When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. See Id.
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. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Sun et al. (US 20190082193 A1) which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Paragraph [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 would be allowable if a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding the current independent claims 1-2, the claims contain limitations that are analogous to independent claims 1-2 limitations of the parent application 18/627,786 (Pat. US 12363308), and therefore allowed on the same premise. Prior arts were found and applied in the allowed parent application 18/627,786 (Pat. US 12363308), its prosecution history is incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights