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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a continuation application filed in which claims 1-12 of the instant application are pending and ready for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because they should each read “The encoder of claim 5” instead of “The decoder of claim 5”.
Claim 9 is objected to because there is no antecedent precedent for “the encoder further configuring the bitstream to be decodable by a method”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: decoder configured to receive, decoder configured to construct, etc... in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,265,566. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,265,566, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,044. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,044, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,347. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,347, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-12 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
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 1-4 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.
Claim limitations “decoder configured to receive”, “decoder configured to construct”, etc... in independent claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear disclosure of structure apparent in the decoder in the aforementioned independent claims. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above for independent claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art made of record in regards to applicant’s claimed invention is as follows:
Lin et al. (US 2018/0249177) discloses a reference frame encoding method and apparatus, and a reference frame decoding method and apparatus. A reference frame decoding method includes obtaining a first reference frame, where the first reference frame is a first picture frame on which decoding reconstruction has been performed or a first interpolated picture frame obtained by pixel interpolation on the first picture frame, parsing a bitstream to obtain mapping parameters, determining to-be-determined coefficients of a preset mapping function according to the mapping parameters, obtaining, in the first reference frame according to the mapping function whose to-be-determined coefficients have been determined, a first pixel unit having a mapping relationship with a second pixel unit of a second reference frame, and assigning a pixel value of the first pixel unit to the second pixel unit (abstract).
Zou et al. (US 2017/0332095) discloses video coding techniques. An example method includes obtaining, for a current block of video data, values of motion vectors (MVs) of an affine motion model of a neighboring block of video data; deriving, from the values of the MVs of the affine motion model of the neighboring block, values of predictors for MVs of an affine motion model of the current block; decoding, from a video bitstream, a representation of differences between the values of the MVs of the affine motion model for the current block and the values of the predictors; determining the values of the MVs of the affine motion model for the current block from the values of the predictors and the decoded differences; determining, based on the determined values of the MVs of the affine motion model for the current block, a predictor block of video data; and reconstructing the current block based on the predictor block (abstract).
Liu et al. (US 2020/0260111) discloses a method and apparatus of Inter prediction for video coding performed in a video encoder or a video decoder. In one method, a GMC (global motion compensation) indication indicating whether global motion compensation is enabled is signalled at the video encoder side or parsed from the video bitstream at the video decoder side. The current processing unit is encoded or decoded using one or more coding modes including a GMC mode if the GMC indication indicates GMC is enabled. According to another method, if a GMC mode is enabled for a region, a number representing the total number of multiple global motion models allowed is determined for encoding or decoding the processing units in the region using multiple global motion models. In yet another method the GMC and local motion compensation are applied selectively or in a combined fashion (abstract).
Dane (US 2011/0103480) discloses techniques for estimating global motion parameters based on block-based motion vectors. Horizontal and vertical motion parameters are estimated independently. A video processing device, in one example, generates horizontal motion parameter candidates for each row and vertical motion parameter candidates for each column, and selects the median of the horizontal motion parameter candidates as the global horizontal motion parameter and the median of the vertical motion parameter candidates as the global vertical motion parameter. The video processing device may further eliminate candidates by calculating error values for each candidate and remove those candidates with error values below an error threshold. The video processing device may also use pre-calculated values of matrices when calculating each of the candidates to further improve efficient calculation of the global motion parameters (abstract).
With regards to independent claims 1, 5, and 9, Examiner has given patentable weight to all of the if-statements in said aforementioned claims.
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1, 5, and 9, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 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 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights