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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 9 July 2025, 18 September 2025, 8 December 2025, and 20 April 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12389022, 11523107, 12568201, 12132888, 11528476, 11936852, 12301793, and 11575888. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to provide a buffer reset to more situations where needed.
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 4, 5, 11, and 19 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “one or more predetermined values are identically equal to zero”. It is unclear how one value is identical if that the case, or how any number of values can be identically equal.
Claims 2 and 12 recites the limitation "the one or more predetermined values" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 16 recites the limitation "each coding tree unit row" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 6-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pham Van et al. (US 2020/0021839 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 19, Pham Van discloses an apparatus using a CRM to perform a method of processing video data, comprising: resetting, during a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, a buffer that stores reference samples for prediction in an intra block copy mode at a video boundary [Pham Van: ¶ [0102]: In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may use at least one history MVP buffer that holds not only coded motion information but also other types of motion predictors, such as for affine motion model, motion information of intra block copy mode, motion information of local illumination compensation, sub-block MVP, or temporal motion predictor]; and performing the conversion using the reference samples stored in the buffer [Pham Van: ¶ [0004]: Video blocks in an intra-coded (I) slice of a picture are encoded using spatial prediction with respect to reference samples in neighboring blocks in the same picture; and ¶ [0091]: Video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may pre-fill the history MVP buffer of each CTU line with motion information from the coded frames (pictures) in the same temporal layer or lower temporal layers (reference pictures that are available for the current frame/picture)], wherein the conversion of a video block of the video is performed in the intra block copy mode which is based on motion information related to a reconstructed block located in same video region with the video block [Pham Van: ¶ [0161]: Motion estimation unit 222 and motion compensation unit 224 may retrieve a reference picture from DPB 218, formed from the reconstructed (and potentially filtered) blocks, to inter-predict blocks of subsequently encoded pictures] without referring to a reference picture [Pham Van: ¶ [0004]: Video blocks in an intra-coded (I) slice of a picture are encoded using spatial prediction with respect to reference samples in neighboring blocks in the same picture].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein the one or more predetermined values are identically equal to zero [Pham Van: ¶ [0095]: Additionally or alternatively, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may clear a history MVP buffer when the associated CTU line is completely encoded/decoded].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein, in response to determining that the pixel buffer is partially full, the pixel buffer is updated sequentially [Pham Van: ¶ [0069]: In some examples, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may use a first-in-first-out (FIFO) rule to remove motion vectors from the MVP buffer when the MVP buffer becomes full].
Regarding Claim 4 and 14, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein, in response to determining that the pixel buffer is completely full, an area of the pixel buffer associated with an oldest coding tree unit is updated [Pham Van: ¶ [0069]].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein the resetting is performed at beginning of each coding tree unit row [Pham Van: ¶ [0089]: Video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may be configured according to the techniques of this disclosure to use multiple buffers for history-based MVP. In some examples, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may maintain separate history MVP buffers for each of CTU lines 152 (each of which may be processed by a separate, respective processing thread), or there can be a single buffer that is reset at the beginning of each CTU line when wavefront parallel processing is applied].
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein the resetting is performed at beginning of the video boundary [Pham Van: ¶ [0089]].
Regarding Claim 8 and 18, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein the resetting is performed at beginning of a picture or a group [Pham Van: ¶ [0089]].
Regarding Claim 9, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video block into the bitstream [Pham Van: ¶ [0002]: This disclosure relates to video coding, including video encoding and video decoding].
Regarding Claim 10, Pham Van discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Pham Van discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the video block into the bitstream [Pham Van: ¶ [0002]].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham Van as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mimms (US 7916728 B1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Pham Van disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Pham Van may not explicitly disclose wherein a size of the buffer is expressed as M=mW and N=H, where M and N represent x and y dimensions of the buffer, m is an integer, W and H are integers representing a size of the coding tree unit, further comprising: upon determining that a previous update started at a location represented as (kW, 0), where k is an integer, computing a next update position as ((k+1)W mod M, 0).
However, Mimms discloses wherein a size of the buffer is expressed as M=mW and N=H, where M and N represent x and y dimensions of the buffer, m is an integer, W and H are integers representing a size of the coding tree unit, further comprising: upon determining that a previous update started at a location represented as (kW, 0), where k is an integer, computing a next update position as ((k+1)W mod M, 0) [Mimms: Col. 11, ll. 55-61: At 694, entity #1 610 updates classifier table #1 612B to reflect that classifier index 0 is now associated with position C 652, the previously open position in which the update was applied to the table 630A. At 696, entity #1 610 updates open position buffer #1 618B to indicate that the new open position available to entity #1 610 for its next update is position B, the position that was superseded in the previous update].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine processing of Pham Van with the buffer sized distribution of Mimms in order to perform processing on portions the buffers are able to process simultaneously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights