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 .
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,062 B2 in view of Nishitani et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0219356 A1).
As per claim 1, Jun teaches a decoding apparatus for image decoding, the apparatus comprising (claim 1, “ an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus”): obtain image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream (claim 1, “obtaining, from a bitstream, image information comprising information related to motion compensation”); determine a prediction mode for a current block (claim 1, “determining a prediction mode for a current block”); derive motion information list including motion information candidates derived based on neighboring blocks of the current block (claim 1, “deriving motion information list including motion information candidates derived based on neighboring block of the current block”); derive motion information of the current block based on the motion information list (claim 1, “deriving motion information of the current block based on the motion information list”); generate a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information (claim 1, “generating a predicted block of the current block based on the motion information”) and generate a reconstructed block based on the predicted block (claim 1, “generating a reconstructed block based on the predicted block”), wherein the motion information related to the motion compensation includes precision information for a motion vector difference (claim 1, “wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes precision information for a motion vector difference”), wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents one of precision candidates including integer pel precision, quarter pel precision and eighth pel precision (claim 1, “wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents one of precision candidates including integer pel precision, quarter pel precision and eighth pel precision”) and wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents the one of the precision candidates as a picture level parameter (claim 1, “wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents the one of the precision candidates as a picture level parameter”). Ju does not explicitly disclose a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: wherein the neighboring blocks for deriving motion information candidates includes a corner neighboring block of the current block, as recited in claim 1.
However, Nishitani teaches a memory ([0505]); and at least one processor connected to the memory ([0502], [0504-0505]), wherein the processor is configured to: wherein the neighboring blocks for deriving motion information candidates includes a corner neighboring block of the current block (abstract, [0008], [0020], and at least figs. 1A-1B, fig 9A-9B).
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 Nishitani with Ju to provide technology capable of reducing the load required to process motion information and improve the efficiency of coding motion information, [0013].
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds with claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,062 B2.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds with claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,062 B2.
Claims 4 and 7 of the instant application is the corresponding encoding apparatus and apparatus for transmitting an image data with the limitations of the decoding apparatus as recited in claim 1, thus claims 4 and 7 are rejected for the same analysis and reasoning as claim 1 when comparing the claims to claims 5 and 9.
Claims 5-6, 8 and 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5, 8, and 10-11 and are rejected for the same analysis and reasoning as recited above for claims 2-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0195562 A1) in view of Nishitani et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0219356 A1) and further in view of Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0207220 A1).
As per claim 1, Li teaches a decoding apparatus for image decoding, the apparatus comprising: a memory ([0153]); and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to ([0153-0154]): obtain image information comprising information related to motion compensation from a bitstream ([0086-0087] and fig. 3 el. 72); determine a prediction mode for a current block ([0087], fig. 3 el. 72); derive motion information list including motion information candidates derived based on neighboring blocks of the current block ([0132] and fig. 3, fig. 9 “video decoder 30 may identify one or more motion vector candidates for inclusion in a candidate list (e.g., merge candidate list or an AMVP candidate list) for a block. The one or more motion vector candidates may, for example includes one or more spatial neighboring blocks”); derive motion information of the current block based on the motion information list ([0087], [0132], fig. 3, fig. 9); generate a prediction block of the current block based on the motion information ([0087]), generate a reconstructed block based on the predicted block (fig. 3), wherein the information related to the motion compensation includes precision information for a motion vector difference ([0121-0122], [0125-0127] and fig. 3, 17).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: wherein the neighboring blocks for deriving motion information candidates includes a corner neighboring block of the current block, the precision information for the motion vector difference represents one of precision candidates including integer pel precision, quarter pel precision and eighth pel precision and wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents the one of the precision candidates as a picture level parameter.
However, Nishitani teaches a memory ([0505]); and at least one processor connected to the memory ([0502], [0504-0505]), wherein the processor is configured to: wherein the neighboring blocks for deriving motion information candidates includes a corner neighboring block of the current block (abstract, [0008], [0020], and at least figs. 1A-1B, fig 9A-9B).
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 Nishitani with Li for the to provide technology capable of reducing the load required to process motion information and improve the efficiency of coding motion information, [0013].
Li (modified by Nishitani) does not explicitly disclose the precision information for the motion vector difference represents one of precision candidates including integer pel precision, quarter pel precision and eighth pel precision and wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents the one of the precision candidates as a picture level parameter.
However, Kim teaches wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents one of precision candidates including integer pel precision, quarter pel precision and eighth pel precision and wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents the one of the precision candidates as a picture level parameter (abstract, figs. 10-14, 27, 29, [0130], [0161-0162], [0172], [0241-0242]“… differential motion vector resolution adaptively changes according to the area or motion vector, is generated by the resolution change flag generator 920 (in the second aspect, a resolution appointment flag generated by a resolution appointment flag generator 3220 enables setting of whether to change or fix the motion vector resolution and/or differential motion vector resolution” and “If the resolution appointment flag appoints 1/2 and 1/4 as the resolution options, the optimum resolution determined by the resolution determiner 3230 and the resolution identification flag encoded by the resolution encoder 3240 are selected from the resolutions of 1/2 and 1/4 and the resolution identification flag may be encoded according to a predetermined method”, [0241-0242]) and wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference represents the one of the precision candidates as a picture level parameter ([0241]).
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 Kim with Li (modified by Nishitani) to improve the quality of the video while reducing the quantity of bits involved in the encoding, so as to enhance the compression efficiency.
As per claim 2, Li (modified by Nishitani and Kim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference is entropy decoded based on at least one of a block size or a block depth of the current block.
However, Kim teaches wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference is entropy decoded based on at least one of a block size or a block depth of the current block (fig. 10-14 and [0172]).
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 Kim with Li (modified by Nishitani) to improve the quality of the video while reducing the quantity of bits involved in the encoding, so as to enhance the compression efficiency.
As per claim 3, Li (modified by Nishitani and Kim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference is decoded from a header syntax.
However, Kim teaches wherein the precision information for the motion vector difference is decoded from a header syntax ([0241-0242]).
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 Kim with Li (modified by Nishitani) to improve the quality of the video while reducing the quantity of bits involved in the encoding, so as to enhance the compression efficiency.
As per claim 4, which is the corresponding encoding apparatus for image encoding with the limitations of the decoding apparatus as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 5, which is the corresponding encoding apparatus for image encoding with the limitations of the decoding apparatus as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 6, which is the corresponding encoding apparatus for image encoding with the limitations of the decoding apparatus as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
As per claim 7, which is the corresponding apparatus for transmitting an image data with the limitations of the apparatus for decoding, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Li teaches a transmitter configured to transmit the image data comprising the bitstream (fig. 1).
As per claim 8, which is the corresponding apparatus for transmitting an image data with the limitations of the decoding apparatus as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 9, which is the corresponding apparatus for transmitting an image data with the limitations of the decoding apparatus as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
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