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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/043575, filed on 9/29/2020.
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, 5-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9, 10 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,575,925. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim 1-3 and 5-10 of the instant application are entirely encompassed by the claims of the ‘925 application. The examiner notes that the claims of the ‘925 application include limitations not required by the claims of the instant application. However a rejection for double patenting is proper for broader, later filed claims in view of narrower earlier filed claims.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-10 of the instant application are entirely encompassed by the claims of the ‘878 application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the rejections for Double Patenting above, claims 1-10 are otherwise allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claims 1, 9 and 10 require, determining a prediction mode of a current block as a merge mode, deriving an initial motion vector of the current block in the merge mode, deriving a refinement motion vector for the current block, deriving a final motion vector of the current block based on the initial and refinement motion vectors, and deriving one of the L0 or L1 refinement vectors from the other of the L0 or L1 refinement vectors based on a POC difference between each reference and the current picture being different.
The closest arts are Chen, and Park. Chen discloses a refinement merge mode for providing refinement vectors for bi-directional prediction. Park discloses that a current picture may be predicted using bi-prediction from reference pictures in reference picture lists L0 and L1 (Park Tables 1-3 in pars 97, 109 and 11 note bi-prediction). Park further discloses that a current picture may have a smaller POC difference to either the L0 or the L1 reference picture (Park Fig. 4 note ref0 of either list has a smaller POC to the current picture than ref1, note Table 3 showing use of ref0 and ref1 in candidate indices 1 and 7 where both the L0 and the L1 reference have a lower POC difference to the current frame). Park also discloses deriving an L1 motion vector from an L0 motion vector (Park par. 104). However, neither Chen nor Park specifically disclose deriving on of the L0 or L1 refinement vector from the other of the L0 or L1 of a refinement motion vector based on the L0 or L1 having a different POC difference to the current picture as required by claims.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 above and are allowed for the same reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights