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 .
This communication is responsive to the correspondence filled on 06/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
IDS Considerations
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner as the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 of US Pat. 12356016 B2.
Even though claim 1 of instant application does not claim “format rule”, however not claiming this does not provide instant application a patentable distinction. Because lack of limitation makes the claim broad obvious variation of US Pat. 12356016 B2.
Even though US Pat. 12356016 B2 does not claim non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. However, this is well known in the art as an example given in prior art Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 20200186799 A1) Wang paragraph [0049] a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine US Pat. 12356016 B2 and Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 20200186799 A1) with predictable results.
Instant Application 19/247,919
US Pat. 12356016 B2
11. A method for video encoding, the method comprising:
determining a split direction for a coding block to be coded in a triangular prediction mode in which the coding block is partitioned into a first prediction unit and a second prediction unit according to the split direction;
determining a first merge index that indicates first motion information in a merge candidate list constructed for the coding block;
determining a second merge index that indicates second motion information in the merge candidate list constructed for the coding block;
encoding a split direction syntax element, a first index syntax element, and a second index syntax element that are associated with the coding block of a picture in a bitstream;
generating a triangular prediction index including a first value that is indicated by the first index syntax element, a second value that is indicated by the second index syntax element, and a third value that is indicated by the split direction syntax element;
and encoding the coding block according to a triangular prediction candidate indicated by the triangular prediction index,
wherein the first index syntax element indicates the first value m, the second index syntax element indicates the second value n, the first merge index is set to m,
the second merge index is to n when n is less than m, and the second merge index is set to (n+1) when n is equal to or greater than m.
11. A method for video encoding, the method comprising:
determining a split direction for a coding block to be coded in a triangular prediction mode in which the coding block is partitioned into a first prediction unit and a second prediction unit according to the split direction;
determining a first merge index that indicates first motion information in a merge candidate list constructed for the coding block;
determining a second merge index that indicates second motion information in the merge candidate list constructed for the coding block;
encoding a split direction syntax element, a first index syntax element, and a second index syntax element that are associated with the coding block of a picture in a bitstream;
generating a triangular prediction index including a first value is indicated by the first index syntax element, a second value is indicated by the second index syntax element, and a third value is indicated by the split direction syntax element;
and encoding the coding block according to triangular prediction candidate indicated by the triangular prediction index,
wherein the first index syntax element indicates the first value m, the second index syntax element indicates the second value n, the first merge index is set to m,
the second merge index is to n based on n being less than m, and the second merge index is set to (n+1) based on n being equal to or greater than m.
9. Limitations of remaining claims of instant application are obvious over US Pat. 12356016 B2 in view of Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 20200186799 A1). Please note 35 U.S.C. 101 allows only one patent from one patent application or invention. In that aspect all dependent claims of instant application are obvious variation of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-20 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Pat. 11451829 B2 by applying transitive property from US App. 18507153. Please see non-final rejection dated 07/05/2024 of US App. 18507153 where double patent rejection has been established between US Pat. 11451829 B2 and US App. 18507153 which is currently US Pat. 12356016 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(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.
Claims 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 20200186799 A1).
Regarding to claim 1:
Wang [0049] teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream of video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (Wang paragraph [0049] 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. Each of video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may be included in one or more encoders or decoders, either of which may be integrated as part of a combined encoder/decoder (CODEC) in a respective device. A device including video encoder 200 and/or video decoder 300 may include an integrated circuit, a microprocessor, and/or a wireless communication device, such as a cellular telephone), wherein the method comprises (the method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. 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 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 claimed bitstream in claims 19 and 21-24 merely
services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional
relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure,
which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and
given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by HENDRY which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0049]).
Any argument attempting to distinguish claim 1 from Wang will be held not responsive to this claim rejection made on distinct and independent grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b).
Claim 1 is directed to a computer readable recording medium storing encoding data generated by a certain image encoding method. This medium storing non-executable content data as digital ones and zeroes is analogous to a printed book in which audio data comprising speech is stored as words written in the Latin alphabet or another writing system. As such, under the “Printed Matter” or “Nonfunctional Descriptive Material” doctrine, the content of the bitstream is not given patentable weight, and the claim is deemed to read “A computer readable medium storing encoding data which is generated by a method of encoding an image”. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.05(III), “When the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. However, where . . . the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. See also O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) (“use of . . . electromagnetism for making or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters” held to be non-patentable); Ex parte Mathias, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1276, 1278–79 (B.P.A.I. 10 August 2005) (informative) (“a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium” is not distinct from the prior art). Considering this, any computer readable recording medium storing encoding data which is generated by a method of encoding an image, in use or for sale before the effective filing date of 4 October 2016, is considered prior art, for example, a medium storing a video encoded with the H.265 codec.
Dependent claims are rejected for the dependency.
Claims are not Rejected under 35 USC § 103 because:
Please note: Claims of instant application are not rejected under 35 USC § 103:
because the current Application 19/247,919 is a continuation from US Application
18/507,153 which issued US Pat. 12356016 B2. For details, please refer the prosecution history of US Application 18/507,153. In summary: Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 20200186799 A1), in view of Sze (U.S. Pub. No. 20120300839 A1) are the closest prior arts
Regarding to claim 1, 11 and 16:
As shown in continuation from US Application 18/507,153 that the combined teaching of Wang and Sze teach “A method for video encoding, the method comprising: determining a split direction for a coding block to be coded in a triangular prediction mode in which the coding block is partitioned into a first prediction unit and a second prediction unit according to the split direction; determining a first merge index that indicates first motion information in a merge candidate list constructed for the coding block; determining a second merge index that indicates second motion information in the merge candidate list constructed for the coding block; encoding a split direction syntax element, a first index syntax element, and a second index syntax element that are associated with the coding block of a picture in a bitstream; generating a triangular prediction index including a first value that is indicated by the first index syntax element, a second value that is indicated by the second index syntax element, and a third value that is indicated by the split direction syntax element;
and encoding the coding block according to a triangular prediction candidate indicated by the triangular prediction index.”
Prior art does not wherein the first index syntax element indicates the first value m, the second index syntax element indicates the second value n, the first merge index is set to m, the second merge index is to n when n is less than m, and the second merge index is set to (n+1) when n is equal to or greater than m. This limitation is interpreted based on Fig. 11, associated specification disclosure especially PGPUB paragraph [0135-0137].
Dependent claims are allowed for their dependency.
Closely related prior art
Examiner notes teaching of U.S. Pub. No. 20200169757 A1 is/are pertinent to the independent claim(s), however is not allowable subject.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM N NIRJHAR whose telephone number is (571) 272-3792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8 am to 5 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William F Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NASIM N NIRJHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights