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 .
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.
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 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, 30-35 and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2 in view of Chuang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0223379 A1).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2
1. A method comprising: determining a horizontal distance as a sum of a horizontal component of the first BVP and a width of the current block; and determining a vertical distance as a sum of a vertical component of the first BVP and a height of the current block; coding, by a computing device, the current block of content using a modified BVP candidate list that includes a second BVP comprising: at least one of: a horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block; or a vertical component that is based on a height of the current block.
2. A method of claim 1, wherein the second BVP minimizes a change to at least one of: a horizontal position of the reference block; or a vertical position of the reference block.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the second BVP comprises the horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block and the vertical component that is based on the current block.
4.The method of claim 1, wherein based on the horizontal distance being less than the vertical distance, the second BVP comprises: the horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block; and a vertical component that is based on a vertical component of the first BVP.
5.The method of claim 1, wherein, based on the vertical distance being less than the horizontal distance, the second BVP comprises: a horizontal component that is based on a horizontal component of the first BVP; and the vertical component that is based on the height of the current block.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein, based on the horizontal distance being equal to the vertical distance, the second BVP comprises: the horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block; and the vertical component that is based on the height of the current block.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein: based on the horizontal distance being equal to the vertical distance, the second BVP comprises: the horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block; and the vertical component that is based on the height of the current block.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a second horizontal distance from the current block to a left-most vertical boundary of an intra block copy (IBC) reference region; and determining a second vertical distance from the current block to a top-most horizontal boundary of the IBC reference region; wherein the modifying the BVP candidate list is further based on a comparison between the second horizontal distance and the second vertical distance.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the BVP candidate list in associated with advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) or is associated with w merge mode.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising coding, based on the second BVP, the current block.
1. A method comprising: determining, by a computing device: a horizontal distance as a sum of a horizontal component of a block vector predictor (BVP) and a width of a current block of a video frame; and a vertical distance as a sum of a vertical component of the BVP and a height of the current block, wherein the BVP indicates a position of the current block; replacing, based on the horizontal distance being greater than zero and based on a comparison between the horizontal distance and the vertical distance, the BVP with an adjusted BVP comprising a horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block or a vertical component that is based on the height of the current block, wherein the adjusted BVP minimizes a change to the position of the reference block.
1. “… wherein the adjusted BVP minimized a change to the position of the reference block”.
1. “… adjusted BVP comprising a horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block or a vertical component that is based on the height of the current block …”
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the width of the current block is cbWidth, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the horizontal distance being less than the vertical distance, setting: the horizontal component of the adjusted BVP equal to -cbWidth; and the vertical component of the adjusted BVP equal to the vertical component of the BVP.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the height of the current is cbHeight, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the horizontal distance being greater than the vertical distance, setting: the horizontal component of the adjusted BVP equal to the horizontal component of the BVP; and the vertical component of the adjusted BVP equal to -cbHeight.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the width of the current block is cbWidth and the height of the current block is cbHeight, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the horizontal distance being equal to the first vertical distance, setting: the horizontal component of the adjusted BVP equal to −cbWidth; and the vertical component of the adjusted BVP equal to −cbHeight.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the width of the current block is cbWidth and the height of the current block is cbHeight, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the horizontal distance being equal to the first vertical distance, setting: the horizontal component of the adjusted BVP equal to −cbWidth; and the vertical component of the adjusted BVP equal to −cbHeight.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the replacing the BVP with the adjusted BVP is further based on at least one of: a second horizontal distance from a position of the current block to a left-most vertical boundary of an intra block copy (IBC) reference region being greater than the width of the current block; or a second vertical distance from the position of the current block to a top-most horizontal boundary of the IBC reference region of the current block being greater than the height of the current block.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising adding the adjusted BVP to a list of candidate BVPs associated with advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) or associated with a merge mode.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising using the adjusted BVP for encoding or decoding the current block.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 does not explicitly disclose based on reference block, associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP), overlapping a current block of content; however Chuang teaches a reference block, associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP), overlapping a current block of content ([0044-0045]) and wherein the content comprises screen content (title;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 does not explicitly disclose wherein the content is screen content however, Chaung discloses wherein the content comprises screen content (title; [0004],[0027], [0029], [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2. Although claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 discloses determining by a computing device, claim 1 does not disclose one or more processors; and memory storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: based on a reference block, associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP), overlapping a current block of content. However, Chuang teaches one or more processors ([0132]); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device ([0132]) to: based on a reference block, associated with a first block vector (BVP), overlapping a current block of content ([0040], [0044], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chuang with U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
Claim 30 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2 does not disclose based on a reference block, associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP), overlapping a current block of content.
However, Chuang teaches based on a reference block, associated with a first block vector (BVP), overlapping a current block of content ([0040], [0044], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
Claims 12-20 and 31-39 are rejected for the same reason as claims 2-10.
Claims 21- 28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 in view of Xu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0379909 A1).
As per claim 21, Ruiz Coll teaches a system comprising: a first computing device (claim 1) comprising: determine a horizontal distance as a sum of a horizontal component of the first BVP and a width of the current block (claim 1; “a horizontal distance as a sum of a horizontal component of a block vector predictor (BVP) and a width of a current block of a video frame”); and determine a vertical distance as a sum of a vertical component of the first BVP and a height of the current block (claim 1, “and a vertical distance as a sum of a vertical component of the BVP and a height of the current block”); and decode the current block of content using a modified BVP candidate list that includes a second BVP (claim 8, “further comprising using the adjusted BVP for encoding or decoding the current block”) comprising at least one of: a horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block; or a vertical component that is based on a height of the current block (claim 1, “replacing, based on the horizontal distance being greater than zero and the vertical distance being greater than zero and based on a comparison between the horizontal distance and the vertical distance, the BVP with an adjusted BVP comprising a horizontal component that is based on the width of the current block or a vertical component that is based on the height of the current block”). Although Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,368,859 B2 discloses a first computing device, Claim 1 does not explicitly discloses one or more processors; and memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the first computing device, cause the first computing device to: based on a reference block, associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP)m, overlapping a current block of content: and a second computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the second computing device, cause the second computing device to: encode the content; and send the encoded content to the first computing device.
However, Xu teaches a one or more processors ([0099]); and memory storing first instructions that when executed by the one or more processors of the first computing device, cause the first computing device ([0099]) to: based on a reference block, associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP), overlapping a current block of content (claims 10-11; fig. 14); a second computing device (fig. 3-4) comprising one or more processors ([0099], [0161]); an memory storing second instruct6ions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the second computing device, cause the second computing device to: encode the content (fig. 3-4; [0040]); and send the encoded content to the first computing device (fig. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu with Ruiz Coll for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
Claims 22 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 23 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 24 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 25 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 26 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 27 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 28 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
Claim 29 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,859 B2.
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, 11, 21 and 30 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.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “… determining a horizontal distance as a sum of a horizontal component …” and “… determining a vertical distance as a sum of a vertical component …” it is unclear what the determined horizontal and vertical distances represent.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-29 and 31-39 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights