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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Patent US 12,368,879 B2
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US 12,368,879 B2 in view of Zhou et al. (US 2012/0320984 A1 with Provisional 61/501,441) (hereinafter Zhou).
Instant 19/246,048
Patent US 12,368,879 B2
1. A method for inter prediction encoding performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
1. A method for inter prediction performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving video data corresponding to a current picture; selecting, for at least one block of the current picture, an inter bi-prediction mode, the inter bi-prediction mode including a first motion vector that points to a first reference picture and a second motion vector that points to a second reference picture;
receiving a coded video bitstream that includes a current picture, and first and second reference pictures associated with the current picture, the current picture including at least one block encoded in accordance with an inter bi-prediction mode, the at least one block including a first motion vector that points to the first reference picture and a second motion vector that points to the second reference picture;
determining whether an out of boundary condition associated with the first motion vector and the second motion vector is satisfied;
determining whether an out of boundary condition associated with the first motion vector and the second motion vector is satisfied;
when the out of boundary condition is satisfied, determining whether a disabling condition for disabling the out of boundary condition is satisfied;
in response to determining the out of boundary condition is satisfied, determining whether a disabling condition for disabling the out of boundary condition is satisfied;
generating a coded video bitstream for encoding of the current picture;
receiving a coded video bitstream that includes a current picture,
signaling, in the coded video bitstream, whether the disabling condition is satisfied for the at least one block;
determining whether a disabling condition for disabling the out of boundary condition is satisfied;
when the out of boundary condition is satisfied and the disabling condition is not satisfied, changing the at least one block from the inter bi-prediction mode to another coding mode, and encoding the at least one block in accordance with the another coding mode; and
in response to the determining the out of boundary condition is satisfied and the disabling condition is not satisfied,
(i) changing the at least one block from the inter bi-prediction mode to another coding mode, and (ii) decoding the at least one block in accordance with the another coding mode;
when the out of boundary condition is not satisfied or the disabling condition is satisfied, encoding the at least one block in accordance with the inter prediction bi-prediction mode.
in response to the determining the out of boundary condition is not satisfied or the disabling condition is satisfied, decoding the at least one block in accordance with the inter prediction bi-prediction mode,
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is reciprocal to and falls within the scope of claim 1 of Patent US 12,368,879 B2. Furthermore, claim 1 in the instant application differs from claim 1 in the US Patent in that it recites generating a coded video bitstream for encoding of the current picture. However these limitations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as seen in Huang, wherein Paragraph [0255]-[0325], with support in Paragraphs [0039], [0171]-[0198] in provisional, video coder may use motion information of a neighboring block to generate additional predictor and blend with the current predictor, wherein OOB inter-predictor in CIIP is kept, but the weight parameter is adjusted such that it is less than or equal to the weight when it is not OOB as indicative of disabling condition. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the instant invention to add the teachings of Huang as above, to improve the final prediction block, thereby reducing residual values and bitrate needed to code the residual values (Huang, Paragraphs [0033]).
Regarding claims (2-4, 6-14, 16-20), claims (2-4, 6-14, 16-20) in the instant application correspond to claims (2-18), respectively, in US 12,368,879 B2.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 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) 1-4, 11-14 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2018/0098063 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a method for inter prediction encoding performed by at least one processor [Paragraph [0005], [0008] & [0079], with support in Paragraphs [0004] & [0025] in provisional, de/coding of inter-prediction using one or more processors], the method comprising:
receiving video data corresponding to a current picture;
selecting, for at least one block of the current picture, an inter bi-prediction mode, the inter bi-prediction mode including a first motion vector that points to a first reference picture and a second motion vector that points to a second reference picture [Paragraph [0111], [0114], [0140], [0147], with support in Paragraphs [0097], [0102] & [0128] in provisional, a bi-directionally predicted block includes motion vectors that refer to reference blocks that are fully within corresponding reference pictures, wherein two candidate blocks in the reference picture list L0 and list L1];
determining whether an out of boundary condition associated with the first motion vector and the second motion vector is satisfied [Paragraph [0056]-[0060], with support in Paragraphs [0031]-[0035] in provisional, The predictor
P
i
,
j
L
x
is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions holds
(
P
o
s
_
x
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
x
i
,
j
L
x
)>(
P
o
s
R
i
g
h
t
B
d
r
y
+half_pixel),
(
P
o
s
_
x
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
x
i
,
j
L
x
)<(
P
o
s
L
e
f
t
B
d
r
y
- half_pixel),
(
P
o
s
_
y
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
y
i
,
j
L
x
)>(
P
o
s
B
o
t
t
o
m
B
d
r
y
+ half_pixel),
or (
P
o
s
_
y
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
y
i
,
j
L
x
)<(
P
o
s
T
o
p
B
d
r
y
- half_pixel)
otherwise, when none of the above conditions holds, the predictor
P
i
,
j
L
x
is regarded as non-OOB];
when the out of boundary condition is satisfied, determining whether a disabling condition for disabling the out of boundary condition is satisfied [Paragraph [0111], [0114] & [0250], with support in Paragraphs [0171], [0177] & [0180] in provisional, Checking if both of the MV points to the positions that are non-OOB, reading as disabling condition];
generating a coded video bitstream for encoding of the current picture; signaling, in the coded video bitstream, whether the disabling condition is satisfied for the at least one block [Paragraph [0255]-[0325], with support in Paragraphs [0039], [0171]-[0198] in provisional, video coder may use motion information of a neighboring block to generate additional predictor and blend with the current predictor, wherein OOB inter-predictor in CIIP is kept, but the weight parameter is adjusted such that it is less than or equal to the weight when it is not OOB as indicative of disabling condition];
when the out of boundary condition is satisfied and the disabling condition is not satisfied, changing the at least one block from the inter bi-prediction mode to another coding mode, and encoding the at least one block in accordance with the another coding mode [Paragraph [0111], [0114] & [0250], with support in Paragraphs [0171] & [0180] in provisional, if one of the MV points to the position that is OOB and one of the MV does not, then the video coder may change the motion information to uni-prediction, which only keeps the MV that does not point to the position that is OOB]; and
when the out of boundary condition is not satisfied or the disabling condition is satisfied, encoding the at least one block in accordance with the inter prediction bi-prediction mode [Paragraph [0111] & [0250], with support in Paragraphs [0171] & [0177] in provisional, if both motion vectors refer to non-OOB areas, video encoder 200 or video decoder 300 may proceed to perform bi-directional prediction, including combining prediction blocks formed from the respective motion vectors].
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the out of boundary condition is determined to be satisfied based on determining that: (i) the first motion vector points to a position in the first reference picture that is beyond a threshold distance outside a boundary of the first reference picture, or (ii) the second motion vector points to a position in the second reference picture that is beyond a threshold distance outside a boundary of the second reference picture [Paragraph [0056]-[0060], with support in Paragraphs [0031]-[0035] in provisional, The predictor
P
i
,
j
L
x
is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions holds
(
P
o
s
_
x
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
x
i
,
j
L
x
)>(
P
o
s
R
i
g
h
t
B
d
r
y
+half_pixel),
(
P
o
s
_
x
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
x
i
,
j
L
x
)<(
P
o
s
L
e
f
t
B
d
r
y
- half_pixel),
(
P
o
s
_
y
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
y
i
,
j
L
x
)>(
P
o
s
B
o
t
t
o
m
B
d
r
y
+ half_pixel),
or (
P
o
s
_
y
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
y
i
,
j
L
x
)<(
P
o
s
T
o
p
B
d
r
y
- half_pixel)
otherwise, when none of the above conditions holds, the predictor
P
i
,
j
L
x
is regarded as non-OOB].
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the out of boundary condition is determined to not be satisfied based on determining that:
(i) the first motion vector points to a position in the first reference picture that is beyond a threshold distance outside a boundary of the first reference picture, and
(ii) the second motion vector points to a position in the second reference picture that is beyond a threshold distance outside a boundary of the second reference picture [Paragraph [0056]-[0060], with support in Paragraphs [0031]-[0035] in provisional, The predictor
P
i
,
j
L
x
is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions holds
(
P
o
s
_
x
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
x
i
,
j
L
x
)>(
P
o
s
R
i
g
h
t
B
d
r
y
+half_pixel),
(
P
o
s
_
x
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
x
i
,
j
L
x
)<(
P
o
s
L
e
f
t
B
d
r
y
- half_pixel),
(
P
o
s
_
y
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
y
i
,
j
L
x
)>(
P
o
s
B
o
t
t
o
m
B
d
r
y
+ half_pixel),
or (
P
o
s
_
y
i
,
j
+
M
v
_
y
i
,
j
L
x
)<(
P
o
s
T
o
p
B
d
r
y
- half_pixel)
otherwise, when none of the above conditions holds, the predictor
P
i
,
j
L
x
is regarded as non-OOB].
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the another coding mode is a uni-prediction mode that uses the motion vector that is not associated with the out of boundary condition [Paragraph [0111], [0114] & [0250], with support in Paragraphs [0171] & [0180] in provisional, if one of the MV points to the position that is OOB and one of the MV does not, then the video coder may change the motion information to uni-prediction, which only keeps the MV that does not point to the position that is OOB].
Regarding claims (11-14), apparatus claims (11-14) are drawn to the apparatus using/performing the same method as claimed in claims (1-4). Therefore, apparatus claims (11-14) correspond to method claims (1-4), and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Huang discloses of at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the computer program code and operate as instructed by the computer program code [Paragraphs [0076], with support in Paragraphs [0051] in provisional, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), discrete logic, software, hardware, firmware or any combinations thereof. When the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure]
Regarding claim 20, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions claim 20 corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream having instructions stored within, which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method for inter prediction encoding the video bitstream, the method comprising…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process are 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, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in claim 20 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 claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Huang which recites in Paragraphs [0076], with support in Paragraphs [0051] in provisional, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), discrete logic, software, hardware, firmware or any combinations thereof. When the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 & 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights